Quick Diachronics Challenge

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
GamerGeek
greek
greek
Posts: 854
Joined: 17 May 2017 18:10
Location: The Universe
Contact:

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by GamerGeek » 14 Jul 2017 17:30

Inkcube-Revolver wrote:I'm alive!

I haven't been playing much, or online much, with school and work keeping me busy, but even though I knew it was over, I I tried my own hand at solving your challenge, Crey. I was able to ce back with:
Spoiler:
1. */a'pu/
2. */'tehu/
3. */'kisa/ (I figured that the final [e] in the other forms came about due to fronting from , but [e] and [o] > [a] makes sense looking back at it).
4. */'pufu/ (I had trouble with the medial [f] in seeing if [p] always became [f] or if it was conditional (of course it was)).
5. */i'pa/
6. */'buku~'buko/ (Somehow didn't see *v > b as a possibility)
7. */'disu/ For this one, I actually considered that *disu > *dzizu > *zid(z)u~zi(d)zu happened, because I couldn't quite pin-point how the [z] and [d] both arised. I also considered an areal affect to drop initial and final vowels, like all the /zid/ and /id/ that showed up. All the forms deriving from *zitu, though, makes this much cleaner, and follows direct changes like the other branches.

8. */'labu/
9. */'nadu/


And there we have it, this one was perdy good!

Edit: With all the u > a transitions, I thought more in the lines of
u → ɯ → a
u → o → a

o → a works just fine, as I now see.

You're a bit late...

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4541
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by Creyeditor » 14 Jul 2017 17:36

Better late than never [:)]
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3355
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 » 14 Jul 2017 18:12

Not to mention that Inkcube clearly mentioned knowing it was over [:P]
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4526
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by qwed117 » 06 Aug 2017 02:58

loglorn wrote:A might be able to posit a challenge a few days from now. I gather there would be interest?
Bump (?)

I can create a challenge if loglorn is unable to.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1902
Joined: 17 Mar 2014 03:22

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by loglorn » 06 Aug 2017 19:49

qwed117 wrote:
loglorn wrote:A might be able to posit a challenge a few days from now. I gather there would be interest?
Bump (?)

I can create a challenge if loglorn is unable to.
You can do it. Working on several projects had the downside of forgetting some of them every once in a while.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4526
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by qwed117 » 19 Aug 2017 06:23

Pretty late: no map because I'm lazy, and it's 12 AM. Assume it's a linear island like Timor. The word comes from the protolang on the Random Phonology Thread. It is not one of the words listed

1. froin
2. ŋɯxʌʒ
3. ŋɵðɤɤʁ
4. æθruː
5. frigʌn
6. xeθɵn
7. hattroŋ
8. həttrʌn
9. yʑɯ̃
10. ðoːɲ
11. ɛzĩ

Good luck.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

Ashtăr Balynestjăr
sinic
sinic
Posts: 202
Joined: 18 Jan 2017 07:17

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by Ashtăr Balynestjăr » 19 Aug 2017 07:18

qwed117 wrote:Pretty late: no map because I'm lazy, and it's 12 AM. Assume it's a linear island like Timor. The word comes from the protolang on the Random Phonology Thread. It is not one of the words listed

1. froin
2. ŋɯxʌʒ
3. ŋɵðɤɤʁ
4. æθruː
5. frigʌn
6. xeθɵn
7. hattroŋ
8. həttrʌn
9. yʑɯ̃
10. ðoːɲ
11. ɛzĩ

Good luck.
I’m going to say *ŋ̊VC(t̪/d̪)ɾBFŋś as a preliminary guess. More details forthcoming. (B and F are a back vowel and a front vowel, respectively.)
[ˈaʃt̪əɹ ˈbalɨˌnɛsʲtʲəɹ]

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4526
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by qwed117 » 19 Aug 2017 07:59

As a side note, I'm going to be giving hints, but I don't think I'll actually evaluate the results until the 'end' when a result reasonably close to the answer has been discovered.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
Davush
greek
greek
Posts: 537
Joined: 10 Jan 2015 14:10

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by Davush » 19 Aug 2017 14:32

I was going to try this, but after a few attempts I gave up. The proto-language phonology is too daunting for my mediocre abilities (aka guesswork)...! [:D]

User avatar
jimydog000
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 04:14
Location: Australia

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by jimydog000 » 19 Aug 2017 21:47

*/ŋ̊et̪t̪roɰɤːɰ/ is what I got.

edit: I forgot the 'lil asterix
Last edited by jimydog000 on 19 Aug 2017 23:44, edited 1 time in total.
“Comparison is the death of joy.” -Mark Twain

User avatar
Creyeditor
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4541
Joined: 14 Aug 2012 19:32

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by Creyeditor » 19 Aug 2017 23:31

My guess is *hrattrɤŋ.

And here is my reasoning:
  • 7. and 8. are definitely related. Proto-87 was probably: *hattrʌŋ
  • A more distant relative of these is 6. I reconstruct Proto-876 as *xættroŋ
  • 2. and 3. are also related. My guess for Proto-32 is *ŋʉçɤɣ
  • 1. and 5. are related, too. My guess is *frigon as Proto-51.
  • 9. and 11. also look vaguely similar. Maybe the stem from Proto-119 *ɔzĩ
  • It is not really clear if 4. looks similar enough. There could have been Proto-1194 *ɛθrỹ
  • Another option is to have 4. and 10. forming a sub-family Proto-104 *æθroːɲ
This leaves me with *xættroŋ (876), *ŋʉçɤɣ (32), *frigon (51) and *ɔzĩ. If the word initial nasal was rhinoglottophilia and the word final stop was denasalization, these actually look pretty compatible.
Creyeditor
"Thoughts are free."
Produce, Analyze, Manipulate
1 :deu: 2 :eng: 3 :idn: 4 :fra: 4 :esp:
:con: Ook & Omlűt & Nautli languages & Sperenjas
[<3] Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics [<3]

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3355
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 » 20 Aug 2017 01:06

I'm just about to start having a go at this, but before I do... Oh my sweet god, that's one hell of a cognate set. I may be some time [:S]

EDIT: As a preliminary guess it's looking like it might be something like *hatru(:)ŋ or *hatru(:)n
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3355
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 » 20 Aug 2017 04:04

I'm likely way off when it comes to relative timings of changes, assuming they're even correct at all, but:
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

 1. froin    < θroin < θrojn < θrojɲ < θroɲ troɲ < ətroɲ < hətroɲ
 2. ŋɯxʌʒ    < ʔɯxʌʒ < ɯxʌʒ < əxʌɲ < əxʌjɲ < əxojɲ < əxojɲ < əxoɲ < əɣoɲ < əʀoɲ < əθʀoɲ < əθroɲ < ətroɲ < hətroɲ
 3. ŋɵðɤɤʁ   < ʔɵðɤɤʁ < ɵðɤɤʁ < əðɤɤʁ < əðɰɤʁ < əðɯɤʒ < əðʀɤʒ < əðʀɤɲ < əθʀɤjɲ < əθʀojɲ < əθroɲ < ətroɲ < hətroɲ
 4. æθruː    < hæθruː < hatru~ < hatrun < hatron < hətroɲ
 5. frigʌn   < θrijʌn < θrijən < θryjən < θryjn < θrujn < θrujɲ < θruɲ < truɲ < ətroɲ < hətroɲ
 6. xeθɵn    < xeθɵjn < xeθojn < xeθojɲ < xeθoɲ < heθɰoɲ < həθʀoɲ < həθroɲ < hətroɲ
 7. hattroŋ  < həttron < həttroɲ < hatroɲ < hətroɲ
 8. həttrʌn  < həttrʌn < həttrojn < həttrojɲ < həttroɲ < hətroɲ
 9. yʑɯ̃      < yʑɯn < yʑɯn < əʑɯn < əʑujn < əʑujɲ < əʑuɲ < əzruɲ < əðruɲ < əθruɲ < əθroɲ < ətroɲ < hətroɲ
10. ðoːɲ     < ðoːɲ < zoːɲ < zo~ɲ < zoɲ < əzoɲ < əʑuɲ < əzruɲ < əðruɲ < əθruɲ < əθroɲ < ətroɲ < hətroɲ
11. ɛzĩ      < ɛzin < ɛzin < ɛzyn < ɛzyjn < ɛzujn < ɛzujɲ < ɛzuɲ < əʑuɲ < əzruɲ < əðruɲ < əθruɲ < əθroɲ < ətroɲ < hətroɲ
Spoiler:
Generally speaking, it looks like the final nasal may have been palatal with a preceding rounded back vowel because the relexes of that vowel are typically either mid+rounded or back+unrounded with a few exceptions, suggesting the original vowel was fronted in some languages while unrounded in others, which is a typical trait of various "palatal" sound changes. However, a number of different languages would all have to have sound changes requiring an intermediate *i so it's equally plausible that the original final VC sequence was actually *oin rather than *oɲ which would then explain the palatal final nasals and the long /o:/ in language 10. (in this case /frigʌn/ could be explained as /frigʌn/ < *frijʌn < *frijən < *fri:n < *fry:n < *fruin < *froin

The multiple different realisations of the initial vowel, as well as the loss of the entire initial syllable, in a number of languages suggests that the original vowel was an unstressed , preceded by an initial *h.

Stress appearing on the final syllable, rather than the first, would also explain the apparently random gemination of *t in languages 7 and 8.

Final words:
Spoiler:
Looking at it, the original proto-word seems to be either *hə'troɲ or hə'troin with the latter possibly being more likely than the former.
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4526
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by qwed117 » 20 Aug 2017 08:16

Ok, so first, I guess I'll summarize the current understanding that y'all have produced. I'll critique it "blind", I will only be giving tips as a person with no expertise in this language family (but expertise in diachronics) might see. You have to be careful of what qualifies as valid criticism of your model. I might not be giving "correct" criticism, but rather a red herring. It depends what you throw at me. (Also, it might seem rather harsh, depending on how you take it, so put up iron walls)

(I think this will be extremely helpful; it's not a good idea to not read this post)

First, just recapping from the OP, and the Protolang post:
The phonology is
/m m̊ n n̊ ŋ ŋ̊/
/p t̪ t k b d̪ d g/
/s ś h j w ɰ ɾ/
/a ɛ e i u o ɤ/

If you got other stuff in your answer, I would highly suggest to correct that.
Secondly, the language is sesquisyllabic, meaning polysyllabic words have at least 1 minor syllable. Minor syllables can only contain /a i ∅/ [ə ɨ ∅].

Next is the groupings proposed by Creyeditor and Sangi39

Creyeditor's grouping goes something like this

Code: Select all

*-------1
 |   |--5
 |
 |------2
 |   |--3
 |
 |------6
 | |----7
 |   |--8
 |
 |------9
 | | |--11
 | |
 | |--?-4
 |
 |------10
 |  |
 |  |-?-4
 
First comment on this structure: I have no idea why you wouldn't place 4, 9, 10, 11 in one group given your reconstruction. Isn't /ɛθrỹ/ and /æθroːɲ/ pretty similar? If you're unwilling to group these together, then I'd assert you either see that
1) the group you've selected is extremely close to the basal group
and/or
2) the group you've selected is paraphyletic, and not cladal, which is a major problem in your reconstruction

Onto Sangi's divisions (This graph was hell to make)

Code: Select all

*-----------1
 | |--------2
 | | |------3
 | | |
 | | |------9
 | |   | |--10
 | |   |
 | |   |----11
 | |
 | |--------5
 |
 |----------4
 |    |-----7
 |
 |----------6
 |
 |----------8
 
Since this is all pulled from your sound changes, I'll just comment on those. There's no valid reason as to why 1 shouldn't be in the əθroɲ group. It's pretty easy to imagine ətroɲ > əθroɲ > θroɲ, and in fact might even be simpler than the root you have provide. If you do this, there's also good reason to add 5, and increase the parsimony. A similar argument could be made as to adding 6 and making the initial split based on the fricatization of the medial t.
Another reason to cast doubt upon the internal structure is the extremely strong similarities between 7 and 8, which you order as having split early in the history. The difference between 4 and 7 is much larger than the difference between 7 and 8. This either suggests that 7 and 8 are so highly conservative as to retain extremely similar features in a central innovative location, yet 4 was in a more separated from 7 as to diverge quickly. While this is possible, it seems a little handwavy.

Now onto critiquing protowords

Ashtâr Balînestyâr *ŋ̊VC(t̪/d̪)ɾBFŋś
There really isn't much to say here, since a lot is missing. What makes you think that there has to be a back and front vowel together? If you're basing it off of just 1, you seem to end up ignoring the large amount of long back vowels in a lot more languages. Also, how do explain the final /ʁ/ in 3? Is it from ŋś? That's not too unreasonable if you believe in something like ŋś >ɣʰ > ʁ.

jimydog000 **ŋ̊et̪t̪roɰɤːɰ
There's no minor syllable. As a trisyllabic word in the protolanguage, the word must contain a minor syllable. The only allowed vowels in a minor syllable are *a and *i. This can be extremely important in determining the fate of a word. Secondly, how do you explain the final nasals in a large number of languages? Are you saying that the final approximant became a nasal? That seems like too many steps in contrast to just hypothesizing a final nasal. Lastly, why do you think the vowel in the middle should be an *o? I'm not sure I see your reasoning Well, I do, but let's pretend I don't

Creyeditor *hrattrɤŋ
Why are there two r's? How would the initial and medial r be lost? Also, is there a good reason as to why we see the change ttr>g? Also, the reverse happening in ç > ð is pretty eccentric.

sangi39 *hə'troɲ or hə'troin
You didn't look at the protolang phonology. Shame. There's enormous realism problems in your sound changes that make them hard to believe. They make me feel like you started playing the Pogostick game rather than actually reconstruct. [:|]


As the map creator I have several harsh comments for everybody
I'm pretty interested to know why everybody thinks literally only fortition happened in the history of this language.
I also am wondering why very few of you guys have decided to group up families: it's actually a relatively decent technique for avoiding contamination from large language families, although to be honest, it seems like it would be less successful for this cognate set than just the phoneme.
It's also probably pretty reasonable to use my "diachronemic" method. Identify different homologous parts and place them in context in the word. The hardest part is deciding which parts are homologous.
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

User avatar
jimydog000
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: 19 Mar 2016 04:14
Location: Australia

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by jimydog000 » 20 Aug 2017 15:34

Number 2 confused me with it's [x] so I just guessed there was another syllable in the protoform and then some weird lenition happened.
Yes, I don't have any real experience with diacronics and I'm impressed with the effort that people have put into the thread.

I tried creating some groups:

Code: Select all

First group:
(7)hattroŋ
	(*)hattron
		(8)hɘttrʌn
		(*)hettron
			(*)hettrɵn
				(*)hettɵn
					(6)xeθɵn
		(*)hæθroː
			(4)æθruː
	(10)ðoːŋ

Second Group:
(*)ɵzɯ̃  (I'm unsure but you could get it possibly from... (*)ɵzɯ̃  < (*)hɵron < (*)hattron)
	(9)yʑɯ̃
	(11)ɛzĩ

Third:
(2)ŋɯxʌʒ
(3)ŋɵðɤɤʁ

fourth:
(*)θroːʒn
	(*)θroːjn
		(1)froin
	(5)frigʌn
“Comparison is the death of joy.” -Mark Twain

User avatar
Click
runic
runic
Posts: 3344
Joined: 21 Jan 2012 12:17

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by Click » 20 Aug 2017 19:35

My reconstruction of the proto-word is *ñhaṭràgin /ŋ̊at̪ɾɤgin/, where the first syllable of the reconstructed word is a minor syllable.
The write-up on the reconstruction is quite long so I've placed it under a spoiler.
Spoiler:
The points of interest in my reconstruction are the reflex of *ñh /ŋ̊/, the evolution of the *ṭr /t̪ɾ/ consonant cluster and the developments underwent by the *-àgi- /ɤgi/ sequence.

The main isogloss is the reflex of *ñh /ŋ̊/ which divides the language family into two branches: the ŋ-branch that includes Language 2 and Language 3, and the x-branch which is larger and comprises the rest of the family.

The reflex of /x/ is divergent in the x-branch: Language 6 is the only language that preserves the original reflex, whereas original /x/ has weakened to /h/ in Language 7 and Language 8. Other languages have done away with /x/ entirely. Among those languages, Languages 1, 5 and 10 have lost the word-initial minor syllable, but it is most likely that the three languages don't constitute a separate phylum; while Language 1 is closely related to Language 5, Language 10 is considerably divergent.


There are two separate processes that took part in the evolution of the *ṭr /t̪ɾ/ consonant cluster.

One process in question is fortition, which is attested in Language 7 and Language 8 where *ṭr is attested as /ttr/. Overall, these two languages are the most conservative ones in the entire language family.

In other languages, the cluster underwent lenition to /θɾ/, which in turn has a stunning variety of reflexes across the language family.
Loss of /ɾ/ is a very common occurrence as it is attested in a majority of this language family, six languages in total. It is attested both in the ŋ-branch and in the x-branch.
In the ŋ-branch, the cluster simplified to /ð/. This is preserved in Language 3, whereas the original /ð/ changed to /ɣ/ and then /x/ in Language 2.


The x-branch can be divided along the lines of whether it was fortition or lenition what took place.

The branch where fortition took place (the F-branch) is a closely-knit one, consisting of Language 7 and Language 8. Besides fortition, similarities between these two languages are preservation of the word-initial minor syllable and collapse of the remaining two syllables into one. The reconstructed ancestor of the F-branch might have been something like *hatrɤn.
This branch is firmly within the x-branch and its distinctive feature is the change of Proto-X *x to /h/.


The branch where lenition took place (the L-branch) is a much wider one, with many smaller sub-groupings inside the branch.

Languages 4 and 6 display affinities to the fortition branch as they both preserve the minor syllable, /θ/ and one of /ɾ n/ while losing -g- in some way. These two languages aren't likely to be mutually related though.
In Language 4, word-final /n/ lengthened the vowel in front of it; Language 6 displays loss of /ɾ/ (possibly via /w/, explaining the rounding on the second vowel) and a probable stress shift towards the first syllable.


Languages 1 and 5 are closely related and constitute a subgrouping (the Fr-branch) within the L-branch. Similarities between those two languages include loss of the minor syllable, change of /θ/ to /f/, and preservation of /ɾ/ and /n/. In Language 1, intervocalic /g/ lenited to /j/ or an equivalent as the reflex of the *-àgi- /ɤgi/ sequence is /oi/. In language 5, /ɤ/ underwent raising to /ɨ/ and later to /i/ while /i/ was reduced to /ʌ/ in the final syllable.
Considering the changes affecting the *-àgi- /ɤgi/ sequence, stress is presumed to have been penultimate in the ancestor of this branch. I've hence reconstructed the Proto-Fr word as *fɾɤgin, with stress located in the penultimate syllable.


In Language 10 both the minor syllable and /r/ were lost, whereas the reflex of Proto-L */θ/ is /ð/. It is unclear whether this is a result of voicing assimilation with /ɾ/ or of intervocalic voicing of /θ/ after loss of /ɾ/. It is likely that *r /ɾ/ changed to /w/ at some point before it was lost and that it helped /ɤ/ become a rounded vowel.
The evolution of the *-àgi- /ɤgi/ sequence in Language 10 might've been as follows: /ɤgi/ → /ɤɰi/ → /ɤːj/ → /oː/, with /ɤːjn/ palatalizing to /ɤːɲ/.


Languages 9 and 11 (the Z-branch) are the other subgrouping within the L-branch. They are the most divergent languages in the L-branch and in the entire family whatsoever. Similarities between those languages are losses of minor syllable and /ɾ/, loss of /θ/, fronting of /ɤ/ and palatalization of original *g /g/ before /i/ and emergence of nasal vowels.
Losses of /ɾ/ and /θ/ amount to a total disappearance of the *ṭr /t̪ɾ/ cluster. This cluster was lost after the loss of the minor syllable, and the first part of the loss was probably elision of /θ/. The rhotic /ɾ/ probably changed to /w/ before being lost altogether according to evidence from Language 9 where the reflex of *rà /ɾɤ/ is /y/ (via **/we/)
Regarding Language 11, the presence of word-initial /ɛ/ might be explained in two ways. The first explanation is that after /ɤ/ was fronted, it fused with /w/ into something like /ø ~ œ/ which later unrounded. The other explanation is that /ɾ/ or /w/ was lost without a trace. A possible proto-form for the Z-branch is one of *øʑĩ, *weʑĩ or *ɾeʑĩ depending on the explanation chosen.

All this data can be reconciled into a single proto-form for the entire L-branch, which I reconstruct as *xaθɾɤgin.

All L-branch languages other than the Fr-subgrouping and Language 4 display loss of /ɾ/ with /w/ as a possible intermediate form and a possible relationship cannot be discounted.


When reconstructing Proto-X it is best to consider /x/ and retention of /g/ as a conservative feature, which leads us to the conclusion that the ancestor of Proto-X is something like *xatɾɤgin.


The ŋ-branch is yet another closely-knit subgrouping. Similarities include loss of /ɾ/, prevalence of back vowels, and loss of the final syllable.
Before the final syllable was lost, intervocalic /g/ has most probably already lenited to /ɣ/. In Language 1 it underwent palatalization in front of /i/ and it is attested as /ʒ/, whereas it became a guttural /ʁ/ in Language 3.
This branch also displays lenition of *ṭr /t̪ɾ/ to /θr/. This cluster probably changed to /ð/ via voicing assimilation to /ɾ/ as there is no evidence of /ɾ/-loss by means of /w/ (no vowel rounding). In Language 2, /ð/ has backed to /ɣ/ presumably after /ɣ/ was palatalized. It lost voicing which results in the Language 2's /x/.
The vowel in the minor syllable is the most difficult to explain. A likely development is raising of original *a /a/ to a mid to high vowel which assimilated in backness in Language 2 and spontaneously rounded in Language 3.
A probable ancestor of the Language 2 and Language 3 words is *ŋəðɤɣɪ, with stress on the penultimate syllable.


Considering the developments in the x- and ŋ-branches, I have reconstructed the proto-word as *ñhaṭràgin /ŋ̊at̪ɾɤgin/.


A tree of this language family according to my view is displayed below.

Image

Ashtăr Balynestjăr
sinic
sinic
Posts: 202
Joined: 18 Jan 2017 07:17

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by Ashtăr Balynestjăr » 20 Aug 2017 20:41

I got rid of the coda consonant in the minor syllable because if it existed it’s probably unrecoverable; its only reflex would be the gemination in 7 and 8. The diphthong was also removed by qwed117’s suggestion.

*ŋ̊at̪ɾɤŋś
  • *ŋəðɤːʒ
    • *ŋɤɣɤʒ > ŋɯxɤʒ (2)
    • *ŋɵðɤɤʁ (3)
  • *hat̪ɾɤŋ
    • *hattɾɤŋ
      • hattɾoŋ (7)
      • hattɾʌŋ (8)
    • *hæθrɤn
      • xeθɵn (6)
      • ðoːn (10) (I’m not really sure where to place this, but I think it’s closest related to 6)
      • *æθrɤn
        • *æθrɯ̃ː
          • *ɛðɻɯ̃ > *ɛzʷɯ̃
            • yʑɯ̃ (9)
            • ɛzĩ (11)
          • æθruː (4)
        • *frɤːn
          • *froin (1)
          • *freɤn > *friɰʌn > *frigʌn (5)
[ˈaʃt̪əɹ ˈbalɨˌnɛsʲtʲəɹ]

User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4526
Joined: 20 Nov 2014 02:27

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by qwed117 » 20 Aug 2017 22:58

A new discovery was made, a stone tablet to the South has revealed a new word 'gʒɛhyn'. We figure this might help in your studies.

In addition to the tablet to the North, a collector has recently allowed professionals to glance at an axe in the center of the island. Engraved in the axe is the phrase "hæθroːn"
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.

Ashtăr Balynestjăr
sinic
sinic
Posts: 202
Joined: 18 Jan 2017 07:17

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by Ashtăr Balynestjăr » 20 Aug 2017 23:18

qwed117 wrote:In addition to the tablet to the North, a collector has recently allowed professionals to glance at an axe in the center of the island. Engraved in the axe is the phrase "hæθroːn"
I’d assume that’s a direct ancestor of 10.

As for gʒɛhyn, I have no idea. It looks somewhat like 9 and 11, but I can’t figure out the exact relationship.
[ˈaʃt̪əɹ ˈbalɨˌnɛsʲtʲəɹ]

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3355
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 » 21 Aug 2017 01:38

Ohhhh, I didn't even click the link, lol. I'd assumed it was a case of "the proto-language's phonology is found somewhere in this thread" [:P]

As for groupings, I actually wasn't really going for any groupings at all to start with. Kind of through it all together in about 15 to 20 minutes before going to bed last night.

And as for realism... Really? Other than a couple of typos here and there I don't see any individual sound changes that are inherently unrealistic
You can tell the same lie a thousand times,
But it never gets any more true,
So close your eyes once more and once more believe
That they all still believe in you.
Just one time.

Post Reply