The main goal here besides seeing others figuring out the puzzle is how they do so: I want to see the multiple ways a single word can possibly change when given enough time, as it might give me interesting new insights into historical linguistics and the malleability of sounds. So hopefully this'll be as interesting to the challengee as it'll be to the challenger. It's not going to be anything too complex for now (at least I don't think so), so without further ado:
16-23 [ˈɸudwozik] - [ˈbei̯t͡ʃɪk]
First word: 2 incorrect consonants, 1 incorrect vowel.
Second word: 1 incorrect consonant, 2 incorrect vowels.
1-8 [oˈⁿdawt͡sʼi] - [ˈᵐbekʼɪ]
9-15 [ˈoⁿdɔⁿsik] - [ˈᵐbeⁿd̪ik]
16-23 [ˈɸudwozik] - [ˈbei̯t͡ʃɪk]
1-23 [ˈɸodɔ̃t͡sʼik] - [ˈbẽt̪ʼɪk]
First word: 2 incorrect consonants, 1 missing consonant
Second word: 2 incorrect consonants, 1 incorrect vowel
No ejectives existed in the original protoforms.
Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge v2
Posted: 07 Sep 2022 04:22
by qwed117
I started making an excel spreadsheet with the forms, but honestly in this case it is not exactly a useful use of my time, since this has been dead for like five months.
My guess right now is something like *hu'ⁿdɔsiku *'mɛ:ciku.
I know that there's sort of been a drop in activity in this kind of thread. I'd recommend that we go back to using maps, and opt for clearer treeings with clear innovatory characteristics.
Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge v2
Posted: 18 Nov 2022 05:10
by ɶʙ ɞʛ
Dang it, the file used to create this challenge has been deleted somehow.
Anyone up to making a new challenge?
Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge v2
Posted: 18 Nov 2022 10:37
by qwed117
I can make a new one. In fact I'm doing that right now :)
Update:
Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge v2
Posted: 18 Nov 2022 13:12
by zyma
qwed117 wrote: ↑07 Sep 2022 04:22
I'd recommend that we go back to using maps,
What if someone "wins" and gets to run the next round, but doesn't have the ability to create a map?
qwed117 wrote: ↑07 Sep 2022 04:22
I'd recommend that we go back to using maps,
What if someone "wins" and gets to run the next round, but doesn't have the ability to create a map?
Maps can be made with free software! I use GIMP and Inkscape generally, but if it's not possible to make a map, then we just don't make a map that round. In general, I think engagement is higher with maps because solvers can then map out their ideas more easily. Maps also allow for a more spatially interesting orientation. The main drawback, I think is that it's harder to do multiple words, so the sound changes, and the guesses of it, are more adhoc. But I also think having multiple words has slowed down the game quite a bit, especially when you're reconstructing four words, and not one.
Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge v2
Posted: 19 Nov 2022 22:20
by ɶʙ ɞʛ
My initial guess is something like *mnajdug, with the following sound changes:
- g > ŋ > ∅, m with vowel nasalization
- g > ɣ > w, j > ∅, vowel changes
- g > k
- g > x > f
- g > g͡ʟ > ˀl in /nɜˈjɔ̯l/ if creaky voice was intended, there seems to be a typo in that word
For now I'm only gonna judge the primary groupings, because if the (admittedly messy) primary groupings aren't correct, then how would you get the upper level groups correct :)
ɶʙ ɞʛ:
ˈmʏθθə
ˈmesɔ̃m
< ˈmes̪s̪om On the right track, but the smallest clade that contains these two languages has a couple more languages in it
majˈlu
ˈmɛ:le
ˈneɬyf
ˈmɛχɛ
< ˈmajɬuh Not quite a clade :/
ʎʎũ
jo
< ʎʎõ Not a clade :(
ˈmia:
ˈmiɛ
< ˈmija On the right track, but the smallest clade that contains these two languages has a couple more languages in it
ˈmɛ:ʝaw
mɛɥ
nɜˈjɔl
iˈjax
< ˈmɛjal Not quite a clade :(
shimobaatar:
Spoiler:
shimobaatar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022 21:08
I wasn't sure how to label the hypothetical subgroups, so I didn't. Anyway, here's my initial attempt: All fair; when we get primary groupings down I'll upload the map with the clades circled with a particular color, which is what we'll use to name the groupings :)
On the right track, but the smallest clade that contains these two languages has a couple more languages in it
[ˈmʏθθə]
[ˈmesɔ̃m]
< [ˈmɪθθɔm] On the right track, but the smallest clade that contains these two languages has a couple more languages in it
[majˈlu]
[ʎʎũ]
< [məʎˈʎu] On the right track, but the smallest clade that contains these two languages has another language in it
[ˈneɬyf]
[ˈmɛːʝaw]
< [ˈmʲɛllev] Not a clade :(
[iˈmʲa]
[jo]
[mɛɥ]
< [mʲæw] Not quite a clade :/
[ˈmɛːle]
[ˈmɛχɛ]
< [ˈmɛɫɫe] Not a clade :(
[nɜˈjɔl]
[nɔlˈlon]
< [nəlˈlɔn] On the right track, but the smallest clade that contains these two languages has another language in it
[iˈjax]
[ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥]
< [ɲeˈjaxʷ] Not a clade :(
VaptuantaDoi:
Spoiler:
VaptuantaDoi wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022 22:52
Here's my groupings:
shimobaatar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022 21:08
I wasn't sure how to label the hypothetical subgroups, so I didn't. Anyway, here's my initial attempt:
All fair; when we get primary groupings down I'll upload the map with the clades circled with a particular color, which is what we'll use to name the groupings :)
qwed117 wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022 23:29Not quite a clade :/
Is there a meaningful difference here between "not a clade" and "not quite a clade"? If so, might I ask what the difference is?
There's a slight difference. If I said "not a clade" it means that none of the languages are unified into a single primary clade. If I wrote "not quite a clade", it means that there is two or more languages that might form one clade together, but not with the other languages
shimobaatar wrote: ↑26 Nov 2022 23:48
Is there a meaningful difference here between "not a clade" and "not quite a clade"? If so, might I ask what the difference is?
There's a slight difference. If I said "not a clade" it means that none of the languages are unified into a single primary clade. If I wrote "not quite a clade", it means that there is two or more languages that might form one clade together, but not with the other languages
majlʊ
milʊɣ
< majlʊɣ
The ancestor of *nɔlˈlon split off from this branch early with a ɣ > ŋ change, while later on it followed changes compatible with the ancestor of *nɜˈjɔl, presumably areal influence. Full evolution path:
*majlʊɣ > majlʊŋ > malloŋ (probable form around first contact with *mɛjal group) > nallon > nɔlˈlon
Protoform: *majɬʊɣ, *ʊ was probably a reduced vowel distinct from *u that could take on a variety of allophones /ʊ ~ u ~ o ~ ɯ ~ ə ~ ɵ/ depending on dialect at some point early in this scenario. In the west it tended to *u, in the south-central to *o, and in the northeast it was often deleted.
Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge v2
Posted: 04 Dec 2022 06:49
by qwed117
shimobaatar:
shimobaatar wrote: ↑30 Nov 2022 18:40
Second attempt:
Not quite a clade :/. This clade's a bit of a tough one, quite honestly.
[ˈmʏθθə]
[ˈmesɔ̃m]
[ˈneɬyf]
[ˈmɛːle]
< [ˈmeɬøm]
Almost there; one member is incorrect, and another is missing
[majˈlu]
[ʎʎũ]
[mʕaɟˈɟu]
< [məʎˈʎu] final stress is correct, but there's a bit missing from the reconstruction. Consider what the presence of pharyngealization in [mʕaɟˈɟu] might suggest
[nɜˈjɔl]
[nɔlˈlon]
[ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥]
< [ɲəlˈlɔn] The clade is correct, but the reconstruction isn't right. (Think about what
ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥ suggests)
[iˈmʲa]
[jo]
< [mʲo] Not a clade
[mæːˈɟəʊk]
[iˈjax] Only one of the "languages" forms a primary clade of itself (as in that it is the 'outgroup') but it's neither of these two, which are grouped with some other languages in their region. Keep in mind the geography!
Eastern group:
ˈmi.a:
ˈmi.ɛ
ˈmɛχɛ
iˈjax
nɜˈjɔl
ɲæ˩ɲæʊ̯˩˥
ˈmɛ:ʝaw
mɛɥ
< mɛjal This is pretty close to a second or third level grouping, but not *quite*. I'd recommend focusing on the words that are geographically close to each other, rather than just phonologically close
ʎʎũ
iˈmʲa
jo
< ʎmo Not quite a clade; keep in mind that the geography of the map is important; the bright yellow-green areas are impassable mountain chains
mæ:ˈɟəu̯k
mʕaɟˈɟu
ˈmʏθθə
ˈmesɔ̃m
< mæ:ɟ̊ɟ̊ug Not quite a clade. The similarity between [mæ:ˈɟəu̯k] and [mʕaɟˈɟu] is convergence.
ˈmɛ:le
ˈneɬyf
majˈlu
< ˈmajɬɵh Not a clade
Since I see that we're starting to head closer to final reconstructions, the proto-inventory, for the entire family is as follows:
/m n ŋ/
/p t k b d g ʔ/
/s ɬ h/ + /ʲ/
/i u/
/e/
/ɛ ɔ/
/æ/
Also personally, I'm pro-collaboration. I recommend it in fact. You should look at the comments that others get :)
Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge v2
Posted: 13 Dec 2022 20:36
by ɶʙ ɞʛ
New guess: *ˈmɛɬʲhɔɬ
Spoiler:
majˈlu
ʎʎũ
mʕaɟˈɟu
< ma:ʎˈɲu
nɜˈjɔl
nɔlˈlon
ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥
< nalˈɲɔl
ˈmʏθθə
ˈmesɔ̃m
ˈneɬyf
mæ:ˈɟəʊ̯k
ˈmɛ:le
< ˈmɛjɬux
ˈmi.a:
ˈmi.ɛ
ˈmɛχɛ
iˈjax
< ˈmjaxɛ
ˈmɛ:ʝaw
mɛɥ
iˈmʲa
jo
< ˈmjaw
ˈmjaxɛ
ˈmjaw
< ˈmjaxɛ
ma:ʎˈɲu
nalˈɲɔl
< ma:ʎˈŋɔl
ˈmjaxɛ
ˈmɛjɬux
< ˈmɛ:ɬux
ˈmɛ:ɬux
ma:ʎˈŋɔl
< ˈmɛɬʲhɔɬ
Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge v2
Posted: 16 Dec 2022 17:58
by zyma
Third attempt:
Spoiler:
I've started by listing out everything that I know, or at least assume I know, so far based on the responses I've gotten to my past two guesses. This is mostly for my own benefit, but if you see that I've misinterpreted anything and you're feeling generous, I'd appreciate it if you could please let me know.
First attempt:
The resemblance between [mæːˈɟəʊk] and [mʕaɟˈɟu] is due to areal influence. I assume this means that these two are not part of the same first-level grouping at all, not just that these two alone don't constitute a first-level grouping.
[ˈmi.aː] and [ˈmi.ɛ] are part of the same first-level grouping, but that clade also contains "a couple more languages". I'm not sure if "a couple" is being used to mean literally "two" exactly or just "a few; several; not many, but more than one or two".
[ˈmʏθθə] and [ˈmesɔ̃m] are part of the same first-level grouping, but that clade also contains "a couple more languages".
[majˈlu] and [ʎʎũ] are part of the same first-level grouping, but that clade also contains "another language".
[ˈneɬyf] and [ˈmɛːʝaw] are not part of the same first-level grouping.
"Two or more" of [iˈmʲa], [jo], and [mɛɥ] "might form one clade together, but not with the other languages". I'm not sure if this means that two of these three "might" form a clade by themselves, or that two of these three "might" form a clade with the addition of some other languages.
[ˈmɛːle] and [ˈmɛχɛ] are not part of the same first-level grouping.
[nɜˈjɔl] and [nɔlˈlon] are part of the same first-level grouping, but that clade also contains "another language".
[iˈjax] and [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥] are not part of the same first-level grouping.
Second attempt:
This is apparently "a bit of a tough one". "Two or more" of [ˈmi.aː], [ˈmɛχɛ], [ˈmɛːʝaw], [ˈmi.ɛ], and [mɛɥ] "might form one clade together, but not with the other languages". I'm not sure if this means that some of these "might" form a clade by themselves, or that some of these "might" form a clade with the addition of some other languages.
[ˈmʏθθə], [ˈmesɔ̃m], [ˈmɛːle], and [ˈneɬyf] would constitute a first-level grouping if one of the four were replaced by a different language.
[mʕaɟˈɟu], [majˈlu], and [ʎʎũ] apparently do constitute a first-level grouping. The most recent common ancestor of these three words had final stress, but also something else that's supposedly reflected as [ʕ] in the first language.
[nɜˈjɔl], [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥], and [nɔlˈlon] apparently do constitute a first-level grouping. Something about the most recent common ancestor of these three words is supposedly reflected by something in the second language.
[iˈmʲa] and [jo] are not part of the same first-level grouping.
Only one language constitutes a first-level grouping by itself. This language is neither [mæːˈɟəʊk] nor [iˈjax], which should instead be "grouped with some other languages in their region".
[mʕaɟˈɟu]
[majˈlu]
[ʎʎũ]
< [mɑʎˈʎu]
Where does [ʕ] in the first language come from? Am I missing an entire segment, some kind of phonation or secondary articulation, or something else? Is it the quality of the unstressed vowel? I suppose that's what I'll assume this round.
[nɜˈjɔl]
[ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥]
[nɔlˈlon]
< [ɲaˈɲɔl]
What about [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥] is supposed to suggest something missing from the reconstruction? Tone is probably the most obvious feature that sets it apart from the others, but it also has the two palatal nasals, two instances of [æ], and the diphthong or vowel sequence in the final syllable. I've been wondering almost since the beginning about the apparent correspondence between the final lateral in [nɜˈjɔl] and the final nasal in [nɔlˈlon], so for now, I'm going to guess that the final lateral may be the origin of [æʊ] in [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥].
[mæːˈɟəʊk]
[ˈmʏθθə]
[ˈmesɔ̃m]
[ˈneɬyf]
< [ˈmeɕəw̃]
I'm pretty sure about keeping [ˈmʏθθə] and [ˈmesɔ̃m] together. [mæːˈɟəʊk] should apparently be grouped with some of the other languages in its region. Apart from [mʕaɟˈɟu], its closest neighbors appear to be [ˈmʏθθə] and [ˈmɛːle]. For this round, I'm going to try putting [mæːˈɟəʊk] with [ˈmʏθθə] and [ˈmesɔ̃m] because it doesn't seem too farfetched to assume a correspondence between a palatal stop and coronal fricatives.
Based on the response I got on my second guess, I'm assuming that either [ˈmɛːle] or [ˈneɬyf] belongs here as well, but I've really been going back and forth with myself on which one to include this round. [ˈmesɔ̃m] and [ˈneɬyf] are both "nasal + stressed [e] + single voiceless coronal fricative + rounded vowel + labial", but [ˈmɛːle] begins with [m] and its [ɛː] reminds me of the [æː] in [mæːˈɟəʊk]. Geographically, there also appears to be less distance between [ˈmɛːle] and [mæːˈɟəʊk] than between [ˈneɬyf] and [ˈmesɔ̃m].
Nevertheless, I think I'm going to try going with [ˈneɬyf] this time, if only because I'm unsure at the moment where else I'd put it without having two "isolates" at this stage or going against something else that I currently assume has been established, namely that it doesn't belong with [ˈmɛːʝaw]. I'm not too happy with what I've landed on for the hypothetical most recent common ancestor of these four words, but oh well.
[ˈmi.aː]
[ˈmɛχɛ]
[ˈmi.ɛ]
[iˈjax]
< [ˈmejax]
I'm pretty sure about keeping [ˈmi.aː] and [ˈmi.ɛ] together. [iˈjax] should apparently be grouped with some of the other languages in its region. Its closest neighbors appear to be [ˈmi.aː], [ˈmi.ɛ], [nɜˈjɔl], and [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥]. [iˈjax] apparently doesn't belong in the same first-level grouping as [ɲæ˩ɲæʊ˩˥], so I'm very tentatively putting it with [ˈmi.aː] and [ˈmi.ɛ] this round. I'm including [ˈmɛχɛ] as well because it's spoken relatively nearby and has a dorsal fricative like [iˈjax], but initial stress and [m] like [ˈmi.aː] and [ˈmi.ɛ].
[ˈmɛːle]
[ˈmɛːʝaw]
[iˈmʲa]
[mɛɥ]
< [ˈmɛʎɛw]
In the first round, I put [iˈmʲa], [jo], and [mɛɥ] together, and based on the response I got, I assume that two of them actually belong in the same group. In the second round, I put [iˈmʲa] and [jo] together, which was not correct. For this round, I'm going to try putting [iˈmʲa] and [mɛɥ] together instead. I'm including [ˈmɛːʝaw] as well both because of phonetic similarities and because it's not spoken too far from [iˈmʲa]. I'm also putting [ˈmɛːle] here if only because I'm not sure where else to put it. There's a fair bit of distance between [ˈmɛːle] and [ˈmɛːʝaw] on the map, but I'm hoping it's not unreasonable to assume that it wouldn't be too difficult for people to move between those mountainous areas near where [ˈmɛːle] is spoken.
[jo]
< [jo]
Basically via the process of elimination, I'm going to assume for now that [jo] may be the one "isolate" at this level.
[mɑʎˈʎu]
[ˈmeɕəw̃]
< [mæʎˈʎũː]
All of these second-level groupings are based primarily on geography, honestly. I don't think I've gotten all the first-level groupings correct yet, so maybe there's no point to trying to reconstruct anything further back in time, but I suppose I'm doing it anyway.
[ɲaˈɲɔl]
[ˈmejax]
< [mʲæˈj̃aɫ]
[ˈmɛʎɛw]
[jo]
< [mɛˈʎew]
[mæʎˈʎũː]
[mʲæˈj̃aɫ]
[mɛˈʎew]
< [mæɬʲˈŋɛu]
qwed117 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2022 06:49
/m n ŋ/
/p t k b d g ʔ/
/s ɬ h/ + /ʲ/
Just to make sure, does this mean that any consonant can be palatalized or just that any fricative can be palatalized?