Quick Diachronics Challenge

A forum for all topics related to constructed languages
User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 227
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by VaptuantaDoi » 23 Nov 2019 05:58

My preliminary guess:

1st word *at’nos
2nd word: *itsodʒes
3rd word: *ina(m)bos
Spoiler:
First word

at’of, at’ʊh, t’uf, aɗǝx, at’uk
*at’ux
(x → f /u_# like in English)

at’ɨ:, aɗɯ, ali, anɨ, ats’i:
*ad’iː
(Maybe there was a nasal as well, considering the fourth branch)

at’ɛθ, t’ǝh, ɗǝs, lǝs, ɣɯ:, dıs
*ad’əs
(Maybe ɗ → d → ð → ɣ?)

tna, n̥a, t’ah, atsa
*at’nah
(Can't figure out /ts/)

Then
*at’ux, *ad’iː, *ad’əs, *at’nah
**at’nos
(os → ux, əs, ah look fine, maybe *os → oi̯ → iː as the other one)


Second word

otsejes, ɔtsʊiʃ, tsu:ʃ, atsi:ç, otsoits
*ɔtsuj(V)s
(The first word is the only three-syllable one so I don't know whether there was a third syllable and what it would have been)

tsø:ǝ, dzoja, zoe, zoje, tʃe:a
*dzoja
(Looks like intervocalic voicing happened here, then word-initial de-voicing perhaps? Either that or the proto-form was *Vtsoja and the vowel was lost in all descendants)

iʃoç, tsojǝh, zoɟʝes, lodʒes, ɣoʒe:, sɔdʒıs
*(i)tsodʒes

tʃʰaha, ʃ:ehe, s:jah, os:ja:
*otsiahe

Then
*ɔtsuj(V)s, *dzoja, *(i)tsodʒes, *otisahe
**itsodʒes ~ **itsojes
(I'm not too sure about the first vowel either; maybe */ɤ/?)


Third word
inauf, inauf, nɔ:f, inaux, inwok
*inaux
(It's immediately evident that the ending is very similar to word one)

ino:ɨ:, inawɯ, ilau, inowɨ, inawi:
*inawiː

inauθ, nawǝh, nabvos, lavos, ɣavo:, nabʊs
*inavos
(n → ɣ is the one I'm struggling with, maybe *ŋ? *ŋg?)

nwɔna, mon̥o, ⁿduǝh, ᵑɡwo:
*nboh??
(not sure here; something with both coronal and velar elements as well as nasalisation looks right; I assumed that a vowel had been lost)

Then
*inaux, *inawiː, *inavos, *nboh
**ina(m)bos

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 167
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 30 Nov 2019 23:09

Interesting guess. Another clue:

Word 2 took an optional suffix in groups A and C.

User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 227
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by VaptuantaDoi » 01 Dec 2019 08:38

Brute force is the best and only way to do anything, so I will do exactly what I did before but purposefully get different results.

Word one: *at’ɨs (I decided I can’t include the nasal because of only two descendants in one branch; maybe it’s an infix or rhinoglottophilia (t’ → tʔ → tŋ → tn → n̥).
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

 a t’ o f
 a t’ ʊ h
   t’ u f
 a ɗ  ǝ x
 a t’ u k
*á t’ o x ~ *áɗox


 a t’  ɨ:
 a ɗ   ɯ
 a l   i
 a n   ɨ
 a ts’ i
*a t’  iː ~ *aɗiː


 at’ ɛ θ
  t’ ǝ h
  ɗ  ǝ s
  l  ǝ s
  ğ  ɯ :
  d  ı s
*at’ ɨ́ s ~ *aɗɨ́s

   tn a
   n̥  a
   t’ ah
 a ts a
*a tn a

 *á t’ o x
 *a t’ iː
 *a t’ ɨ́ s
 *a tn a
**a t’ ɨ s
Word two: *ɨtsoj (-es)
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

 ts e j e s
 ts ʊ  i  ʃ 
 s  u  :  ʃ 
 ts i  :  ç
 ts o  i  ts
*ts o j e č


  ts ø: ǝ
  dz oj a 
  z  o  e 
  z  oj e 
  tʃ e: a
*Vts oj ə


 i ʃ  o ç
   ts o j  ǝ h
   z  o ɟj e s
   l  o dʒ e s
   ğ  o ʒ  e
   s  ɔ dʒ ı s
*i ts o ǧ  e s


   tʃ ʰ  a ha
   ʃ  :  e he
   s  :j a h
 o s  :j a :
*o č  j  a hə


 *  ts o j  e č
 *V ts o j  ə
 *i ts o dʒ e s
 *o č    j  a hə
**ɨ ts o j  e s
Word three: *inavos (-na) with suffix in group D languages
Spoiler:

Code: Select all

 i n au f
 i n au f
   n ɔ: f
 i n au x
 i n wo k
*i n au x


 i n o: ɨ:
 i n aw ɯ
 i l a  u
 i n ow ɨ
 i n aw i:
*i n aw ɨː

 i n a u    θ
   n a w  ǝ h
   n a b̪v o s
   l a v  o s
   ğ a v  o :
   n a b  ʊ s
*i n a v  o s

 n  w ɔ n  a
   m  o n̥  o
 ⁿd u ǝ h
 ᵑg w o :
*nd w o sn a

 *i n  a u   x
 *i n  a w ɨ ː
 *i n  a v o s
 *  nd   w o s n a
**i n  a v o s(n a)

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 167
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 02 Dec 2019 04:36

This guess is closer than the previous one for word 2. About equally distant for 1 and 3 (but still pretty close, the t' is right, but the second syllable is not). There is no /ɨ/ in the initial vowel system, just /i e a o u/. /j/ in word 2 is correct, I originally made it /ɣ/ but it changed to /j/ or another palatal in all branches. There was no suffix in word 3; 1 and 3 originally ended with /n/ which devoiced and changed to /θ/ in some cases, which stayed or lenited to /h~x/. Sorry for being a complete idiot for these kinds of challenges.

User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 227
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by VaptuantaDoi » 02 Dec 2019 07:43

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
02 Dec 2019 04:36
This guess is closer than the previous one for word 2. About equally distant for 1 and 3 (but still pretty close, the t' is right, but the second syllable is not). There is no /ɨ/ in the initial vowel system, just /i e a o u/. /j/ in word 2 is correct, I originally made it /ɣ/ but it changed to /j/ or another palatal in all branches. There was no suffix in word 3; 1 and 3 originally ended with /n/ which devoiced and changed to /θ/ in some cases, which stayed or lenited to /h~x/. Sorry for being a complete idiot for these kinds of challenges.
It wouldn't be any fun if all the changes were obvious! [:D]

With the new clues, here are my revised guesses:

Word one: *at’en
Word two: *et͡soj (-es)
Word three: *inavon

The group D languages seem to be the most divergent and/or the most conservative branch. There was obviously a lot of vowel deletion is most branches, which makes it more challenging. I'll leave these guesses as they are for now.

(Now that you've revealed it, I'm wondering why I didn't think of a voiceless nasal in an early stage, because it explains everything much more neatly)

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 167
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 03 Dec 2019 18:24

I guess the first vowel in word 2 is not completely reconstructible. It could have been /ɨ/ if there were no restrictions on the protolang inventory. /e/ can be explained through /e/ > /ə/, which then in some cases assimilated to the /o/ in the next syllable. Same for the second vowel in word 1. I think you are as close as you will get to the answer. All vowels in word 3 are correct. My original plans were:

*at'on
*os:oja(s)
*inawon

User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 227
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by VaptuantaDoi » 03 Dec 2019 20:38

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
03 Dec 2019 18:24
I guess the first vowel in word 2 is not completely reconstructible. It could have been /ɨ/ if there were no restrictions on the protolang inventory. /e/ can be explained through /e/ > /ə/, which then in some cases assimilated to the /o/ in the next syllable. Same for the second vowel in word 1. I think you are as close as you will get to the answer. All vowels in word 3 are correct. My original plans were:

*at'on
*os:oja(s)
*inawon
I'm pleasantly surprised by how close I was with the first and last ones. The second one less so; I only just realised you'd posted an inventory on the other page, and several other clues, which would have helped.

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 167
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 04 Dec 2019 17:11

Would VaptuantaDoi like to make another challenge?

User avatar
VaptuantaDoi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 227
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by VaptuantaDoi » 04 Dec 2019 20:33

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
04 Dec 2019 17:11
Would VaptuantaDoi like to make another challenge?
I've decided that I wouldn't be able to make anything interesting enough, so I'll leave it open to whoever wants to.

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11793
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar » 04 Dec 2019 22:47

Based on this response at the end of the challenge before this one:
sangi39 wrote:
11 Aug 2019 19:39
Well since no-one else has attempted a reconstruction since the "re-attempt", I can say, Shimobaatar, that you were almost spot on, at least in regards to the proto-forms.
I would have liked to have gone, but something else had already been posted. That being said, while I'd like to volunteer to go now, I'm very busy preparing for final exams/papers/projects, and I don't want to ask everyone to wait two weeks for me to have time to sit down and try to come up with something suitable.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3357
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 » 05 Dec 2019 20:42

I could probably whip something up by tomorrow evening (UK time) if bit by the end of tonight.
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: 3357
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 » 06 Dec 2019 22:33

Something that I'm hoping should be relatively simple, but interesting to work through (fingers crossed):

Image
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.

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 167
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 07 Dec 2019 00:09

1. 'patʃ':e, aɲ'tʃika, ʃej'ɲago
2. 'pats'iʃ, ɲa'tsik, ʎe'maŋ
3. 'paɟise, ɲæ'cik:a, le'meŋgo

- Proto-form: 'pac'ise, aɲa'cik:a, le'menago (could have /ɬ/ or /ɲ/ instead of /l/ and /n/)

4. 'p'a:ts'æ, ɲe'tuka, hil'mæ:ŋa
5. 'auts'a, ɲi'tuka, hil'maiɲa

Proto-form: 'pauts'æ, ɲe'tuka, hil'maiŋa

6. 'p'atis, ɲæ'tug, hilæ'mæŋ
7. 'padizæ, ã'tu:, ila'mã:

Proto-form: 'patisa, ɲa'tug, hila'maŋ(a)

8. 'badis, ja'tuk'a, il'meŋgi
9. 'baris, ʑæ'tuga, il'mægi
10. 'balisa, dʑæ'tuk:a, læ'mæga

Proto-form: 'badisa, ɟa'tuk:a, ila'maŋga

Overall proto-word:

*pat'isa
*aɟatɨk:a
*hilamanga

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3357
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 » 04 Jan 2020 16:20

Well, since it's been almost a month [:P] (I think with end-of-term for those in school, then Christmas and New Year for a fair few users, this one might have been poorly timed in terms of getting a response, plus, as we've seen, the more active participants are already become less active anyway because of various things going on in their own lives).

Anyway, here's a go at reviewing the guess so far.
ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
07 Dec 2019 00:09
1. 'patʃ':e, aɲ'tʃika, ʃej'ɲago
2. 'pats'iʃ, ɲa'tsik, ʎe'maŋ
3. 'paɟise, ɲæ'cik:a, le'meŋgo

- Proto-form: 'pac'ise, aɲa'cik:a, le'menago (could have /ɬ/ or /ɲ/ instead of /l/ and /n/)
1, 2, and 3 can actually be broken down further, which could help in pinning down this particular set of proto-words.

The placement of stress in the proto-words is correct, and there are some very close guesses, especially with regards the the first and second word, but you fall short on the third word (you're almost there, but I think you're assuming too many syllables in the proto-words).


ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
07 Dec 2019 00:09
4. 'p'a:ts'æ, ɲe'tuka, hil'mæ:ŋa
5. 'auts'a, ɲi'tuka, hil'maiɲa

Proto-form: 'pauts'æ, ɲe'tuka, hil'maiŋa
A correct grouping in that is can't be broken down any further, and you're almost spot on with the proto-words, but you've gone in the wrong direction with the long vowel ~ diphthong correspondence.


ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
07 Dec 2019 00:09
6. 'p'atis, ɲæ'tug, hilæ'mæŋ
7. 'padizæ, ã'tu:, ila'mã:

Proto-form: 'patisa, ɲa'tug, hila'maŋ(a)
Another correct grouping, and almost spot on again with the proto-words.

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
07 Dec 2019 00:09

8. 'badis, ja'tuk'a, il'meŋgi
9. 'baris, ʑæ'tuga, il'mægi
10. 'balisa, dʑæ'tuk:a, læ'mæga

Proto-form: 'badisa, ɟa'tuk:a, ila'maŋga
Like with 1, 2, and 3, these can be broken down into smaller groupings, but closer here with the proto-words than with that particular group.

ɶʙ ɞʛ wrote:
07 Dec 2019 00:09
Overall proto-word:

*pat'isa
*aɟatɨk:a
*hilamanga
These are fairly close, but not quite. I think you could probably still work backwards and work out stress placement for these.

One hint might be to look at how the groups that you have so far might relate to each other, which might help in pinning down proto-forms more accurately.
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
VaptuantaDoi
sinic
sinic
Posts: 227
Joined: 18 Nov 2019 07:35

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by VaptuantaDoi » 05 Jan 2020 03:14

My guesses are:

**/ˈp’atisa/
**/ɲaˈtukːa/
**/hileˈmeŋga/

I'm relatively certain about the consonants other than the ejectives in the first one, but the vowels less so. There might have been /æ/ in the second or third ones. My groupings were probably not very accurate because I based them on the first consonant of the first word and then broke up the first group based on the second consonant.

Code: Select all

Group 1a
ˈpatʃ’ːe   ˈpats’iʃ
aɲˈtʃika    ɲaˈtsik
ʃejˈɲago    ʎeˈmaŋ
→ *ˈpats’iʃ(e), *ɲaˈtsika, *ʎejˈmaŋgo

Group 1b
ˈpaɟise     ˈpadizæ 
ɲæˈcikːa    ãˈtuː 
leˈmeŋgo    ilaˈmã 
→ *ˈpadisæ, *ɲaˈtukːa, *ilaˈmeŋgo

proto-Group 1
*pat’ise, *ɲaˈtukːa, *ileˈmaŋgo

Group 2
ˈp’aːts’æ   ˈauts’a    ˈp’atis
ɲeˈtuka     ɲiˈtuka    ɲæˈtug
hilˈmæːŋa   hilˈmaiɲa  hilæˈmæŋ
→ *ˈp'aːtisa, *ɲeˈtuka, *hilæˈmæːŋa

Group 2
ˈbadis     ˈbaris      ˈbalisa
jaˈtuk’a   ʑæˈtuga     dʑæˈtukːa
ilˈmeŋgi   ilˈmægi     læˈmæga
→ *ˈbadisa, *dʑaˈtukːa, *ilæˈmæŋgi

shimobaatar
korean
korean
Posts: 11793
Joined: 12 Jul 2013 23:09
Location: PA → IN

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by shimobaatar » 05 Jan 2020 20:39

sangi39 wrote:
04 Jan 2020 16:20
Well, since it's been almost a month [:P] (I think with end-of-term for those in school, then Christmas and New Year for a fair few users, this one might have been poorly timed in terms of getting a response
Ah yeah, haha, that's pretty spot-on. I'm happy to have been reminded of this now so I can finally give it a shot while I still have time.

Just typing out the words from the map here for ease of access, so to speak, and labeling them:
Spoiler:
1
[ˈpatʃʼːe]
[aɲˈtʃika]
[ʃejˈɲago]

2
[ˈpatsʼiʃ]
[ɲaˈtsik]
[ʎeˈmaŋ]

3
[ˈpaɟise]
[ɲæˈcikːa]
[leˈmeŋgo]

4
[ˈpʼaːtsʼæ]
[ɲeˈtuka]
[hilˈmæːŋa]

5
[ˈautsʼa]
[ɲiˈtuka]
[hilˈmaiɲa]

6
[ˈpʼatis]
[ɲæˈtug]
[hilæˈmæŋ]

7
[ˈpadizæ]
[ãˈtuː]
[ilaˈmãː]

8
[ˈbadis]
[jaˈtukʼa]
[ilˈmeŋgi]

9
[ˈbaris]
[ʑæˈtuga]
[ilˈmægi]

10
[ˈbalisa]
[dʑæˈtukːa]
[læˈmæga]

A rather preliminary guess accompanied by some rambling thoughts:
Spoiler:
Proto-ABCD
*[ˈpʼatʼisæ] - *[ɲæˈtukːa] - *[hilaˈmæŋgo]

Group A
[ˈpatʃʼːe] - [aɲˈtʃika] - [ʃejˈɲago] (1)
[ˈpatsʼiʃ] - [ɲaˈtsik] - [ʎeˈmaŋ] (2)
[ˈpaɟise] - [ɲæˈcikːa] - [leˈmeŋgo] (3)
< *[ˈpacʼise] - *[ɲaˈcikːa] - *[leˈmæŋgo] (Proto-A)

Notes:
-Initially, I wasn't sure about the POA of the sibilant in the first word, since it's [ʃ] in 2 but [s] in 3, and it seems to have been "absorbed" into the affricate in 1, but based on the presence of [s] or [z] in 6-10, I'm assuming it was originally [s], and that it was palatalized in 2 before the loss of final [e].
-The pretonic portion of the second word in 1 is troublesome. All other languages, apart from 7, have CV, but 1 has VC. I'm chalking it up to metathesis for now, although that doesn't quite feel right to me, especially considering the fact that 1-3 appear to have metathesized the [-Vl-] portion of the third word, compared to 4-5 and 8-9 in particular, from VC to CV. Unless the progression of the third word wasn't [(C₁)V₁C₂V₂-] (6-7) > [(C₁)V₁C₂-] (4-5, 8-9) > [C₂V₁-] (1-3, 10), but rather [(C₁)V₁C₂V₂-] > [(C₁)V₁C₂-] in 4-5 and 8-9 and [(C₁)V₁C₂V₂-] > [C₂V₂-] in 1-3 and 10, remaining [(C₁)V₁C₂V₂-] in 6-7? Hmm…
-I assume that the [-j-] in the initial syllable of the third word in 1 is from the following [ɲ], but I'm not entirely sure about that. I'm even less sure about the initial [ʃ] in 1 compared to the laterals in 2-3, although something like [ʎ] > [ʒ] > [ʃ] isn't out of the question. I've been assuming something along the lines of *[hilaˈmæŋgo] > *[ilˈmæŋgo] > *[leˈmæŋgo] > *[lʲeˈmʲæŋgo] > *[ʎejˈɲago] > [ʃejˈɲago], but maybe it was more like *[hilaˈmæŋgo] > *[helˈmæŋgo] > *[çelʲˈmʲæŋgo] > *[ʃeʎˈɲago] > [ʃejˈɲago]…
-The placement of 1 is perhaps the hardest part of all of this for me, since it's different from 2-3 in a number of ways (namely those mentioned above), but it also seems to fit with them rather well in other ways: they all have initial [p-] in the first word, they all have initial [CV(j)-] in the third word, 1 and 3 agree in terms of their final vowels, and there's this correspondence of [tʃʼ tʃ] (1) - [tsʼ ts] (2) - [ɟ c] (3).

Group B
[ˈpʼaːtsʼæ] - [ɲeˈtuka] - [hilˈmæːŋa] (4)
[ˈautsʼa] - [ɲiˈtuka] - [hilˈmaiɲa] (5)
< *[ˈpʼaːtsʼæ] - *[ɲeˈtuka] - *[hilˈmæːŋa] (Proto-B)

Notes:
-I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the words in Proto-B ending up identical to the words in 4, but that's what makes sense to me at the moment.

Group C
[ˈpʼatis] - [ɲæˈtug] - [hilæˈmæŋ] (6)
[ˈpadizæ] - [ãˈtuː] - [ilaˈmãː] (7)
< *[ˈpʼatisæ] - *[ɲaˈtug] - *[hilaˈmæŋ] (Proto-C)

Notes:
-I'm not entirely confident in my assumption of [ɲa-] > [ã-] for the second word in 7, but I suppose I'm sticking with it for now. Given what seems to have happened at the end of the third word, I suppose I could assume that metathesis occurred: [ɲa-] > [aɲ-] > [ã-]. If that were the case, the fact that the nasal vowel is long in the third word but not the second could have something to do with stress. However, given the fact that only two languages, 1 and 7, don't have initial [CV-] for the second word, and given the fact that 1 and 7 are spoken quite far away from one another, I'm not sure if it makes sense to me to assume that those two languages alone independently metathesized the first syllable of the second word for, as far as I can tell, no reason. As noted above, I'm no longer even sure that metathesis took place in the third word, although that may be more likely, considering it appears to have happened in four of the ten languages, three of which are quite close together.

Group D
[ˈbadis] - [jaˈtukʼa] - [ilˈmeŋgi] (8)
[ˈbaris] - [ʑæˈtuga] - [ilˈmægi] (9)
[ˈbalisa] - [dʑæˈtukːa] - [læˈmæga] (10)
< *[ˈbadisa] - *[jæˈtukːa] - *[ilˈmæŋgi] (Proto-D)

Notes:
-I'm not 100% sure about the [kʼ] (8) - [g] (9) - [kː] (10) correspondence in the second word. The [d] (8) - [r] (9) - [l] (10) and [j] (8) - [ʑ] (9) - [dʑ] (10) correspondences in the first and second words, respectively, also feel somewhat off to me, although not entirely implausible.
-This is another grouping that I'm not too certain about. In some ways (no final vowel in the first word, final [-i] and initial [il-] in the third word), 8-9 feel closer to one another than to 10, but in other ways (a medial liquid in the first word, initial [(d)ʑæ-] in the second word, medial [-æg-] in the third word), 9-10 feel closer to one another than to 8. Of course, all three also appear to share some common features.

*[ˈpacʼise] - *[ɲaˈcikːa] - *[leˈmæŋgo] (Proto-A)
*[ˈpʼaːtsʼæ] - *[ɲeˈtuka] - *[hilˈmæːŋa] (Proto-B)
*[ˈpʼatisæ] - *[ɲaˈtug] - *[hilaˈmæŋ] (Proto-C)
*[ˈbadisa] - *[jæˈtukːa] - *[ilˈmæŋgi] (Proto-D)
< **[ˈpʼatʼisæ] - **[ɲæˈtukːa] - **[hilaˈmæŋgo] (Proto-ABCD)

Notes:
-The [-i-] in the stressed syllable of the second word in Proto-A stands out to me, compared to the [-u-] present elsewhere, but I suppose [u] > [y] > [i] isn't too strange. A bigger problem, I suppose, is the [o] (A) - [a] (B) - [Ø] (C) - [i] (D) correspondence for the final vowel of the third word.
-I'm also kind of unsure about some of the low vowels, but I guess I'm not as concerned about that.
-I'm currently unsure exactly how to explain the long vowels in the first and third words in Proto-B.

If I might ask:

Are all sub-groupings within the family equal in size/number of "members"? Are there any that consist of just a single language?

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 167
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 09 Jan 2020 00:18

All vowel reflexes:

1. a_0_e, a_0_i_a, 0_ej_a_o
2. a_i_0, 0_a_i_0, 0_e_a_0_0
3. a_i_e, 0_æ_i_a, 0_e_e_0_o

4: a:_0_æ, 0_e_u_a, i_0_æ:_0_a
5: au_0_a, 0_i_u_a, i_0_ai_0_a

6: a_i_0, 0_æ_u_0, i_æ_æ_0_0
7: a_i_æ, 0_ã_u:_0, i_a_ã:_0_0

8: a_i_0, 0_a_u_a, i_0_e_0_i
9: a_i_0, 0_æ_u_a, i_0_æ_0_i
10: a_i_a, 0_æ_u_a, 0_æ_æ_0_a




So, assuming that the reflexes in (45) are *æ: *a: > ai au, while *æ *a > a in 5. Also, unstressed *e appears to go to *i in 5.

What is the reflex of the final vowel of the 3rd word? It could be virtually anything. Could it be *e? That conflicts with 5, as unstressed *e becomes *i there. What about *ja or *jæ? That explains the *i reflexes in 8 and 9 as well as *a in 5.

User avatar
sangi39
moderator
moderator
Posts: 3357
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 » 11 Jan 2020 23:06

VaptuantaDoi wrote:
05 Jan 2020 03:14
My guesses are:

**/ˈp’atisa/
**/ɲaˈtukːa/
**/hileˈmeŋga/

I'm relatively certain about the consonants other than the ejectives in the first one, but the vowels less so. There might have been /æ/ in the second or third ones. My groupings were probably not very accurate because I based them on the first consonant of the first word and then broke up the first group based on the second consonant.

Code: Select all

Group 1a
ˈpatʃ’ːe   ˈpats’iʃ
aɲˈtʃika    ɲaˈtsik
ʃejˈɲago    ʎeˈmaŋ
→ *ˈpats’iʃ(e), *ɲaˈtsika, *ʎejˈmaŋgo

Group 1b
ˈpaɟise     ˈpadizæ 
ɲæˈcikːa    ãˈtuː 
leˈmeŋgo    ilaˈmã 
→ *ˈpadisæ, *ɲaˈtukːa, *ilaˈmeŋgo

proto-Group 1
*pat’ise, *ɲaˈtukːa, *ileˈmaŋgo

Group 2
ˈp’aːts’æ   ˈauts’a    ˈp’atis
ɲeˈtuka     ɲiˈtuka    ɲæˈtug
hilˈmæːŋa   hilˈmaiɲa  hilæˈmæŋ
→ *ˈp'aːtisa, *ɲeˈtuka, *hilæˈmæːŋa

Group 2
ˈbadis     ˈbaris      ˈbalisa
jaˈtuk’a   ʑæˈtuga     dʑæˈtukːa
ilˈmeŋgi   ilˈmægi     læˈmæga
→ *ˈbadisa, *dʑaˈtukːa, *ilæˈmæŋgi
I think you're closer than ɶʙ ɞʛ's first guess, but I'd suggest looking at the groupings again, following the same advice (in so far as there's nothing wrong with the groupings you have so far, but a more in-depth look might have some benefits [:)]
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: 3357
Joined: 12 Aug 2010 01:53
Location: North Yorkshire, UK

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by sangi39 » 11 Jan 2020 23:52

shimobaatar wrote:
05 Jan 2020 20:39
sangi39 wrote:
04 Jan 2020 16:20
Well, since it's been almost a month [:P] (I think with end-of-term for those in school, then Christmas and New Year for a fair few users, this one might have been poorly timed in terms of getting a response
Ah yeah, haha, that's pretty spot-on. I'm happy to have been reminded of this now so I can finally give it a shot while I still have time.
It happens [:)] Always happy to see people making their way back to the forum, but we all have our busy times.
Spoiler:
shimobaatar wrote:
05 Jan 2020 20:39
Proto-ABCD
*[ˈpʼatʼisæ] - *[ɲæˈtukːa] - *[hilaˈmæŋgo]
This is the closest anyone has been so far, and it's actually remarkably close (there's literally only two mistakes).


shimobaatar wrote:
05 Jan 2020 20:39
Group A
[ˈpatʃʼːe] - [aɲˈtʃika] - [ʃejˈɲago] (1)
[ˈpatsʼiʃ] - [ɲaˈtsik] - [ʎeˈmaŋ] (2)
[ˈpaɟise] - [ɲæˈcikːa] - [leˈmeŋgo] (3)
< *[ˈpacʼise] - *[ɲaˈcikːa] - *[leˈmæŋgo] (Proto-A)

Notes:
-Initially, I wasn't sure about the POA of the sibilant in the first word, since it's [ʃ] in 2 but [s] in 3, and it seems to have been "absorbed" into the affricate in 1, but based on the presence of [s] or [z] in 6-10, I'm assuming it was originally [s], and that it was palatalized in 2 before the loss of final [e].
-The pretonic portion of the second word in 1 is troublesome. All other languages, apart from 7, have CV, but 1 has VC. I'm chalking it up to metathesis for now, although that doesn't quite feel right to me, especially considering the fact that 1-3 appear to have metathesized the [-Vl-] portion of the third word, compared to 4-5 and 8-9 in particular, from VC to CV. Unless the progression of the third word wasn't [(C₁)V₁C₂V₂-] (6-7) > [(C₁)V₁C₂-] (4-5, 8-9) > [C₂V₁-] (1-3, 10), but rather [(C₁)V₁C₂V₂-] > [(C₁)V₁C₂-] in 4-5 and 8-9 and [(C₁)V₁C₂V₂-] > [C₂V₂-] in 1-3 and 10, remaining [(C₁)V₁C₂V₂-] in 6-7? Hmm…
-I assume that the [-j-] in the initial syllable of the third word in 1 is from the following [ɲ], but I'm not entirely sure about that. I'm even less sure about the initial [ʃ] in 1 compared to the laterals in 2-3, although something like [ʎ] > [ʒ] > [ʃ] isn't out of the question. I've been assuming something along the lines of *[hilaˈmæŋgo] > *[ilˈmæŋgo] > *[leˈmæŋgo] > *[lʲeˈmʲæŋgo] > *[ʎejˈɲago] > [ʃejˈɲago], but maybe it was more like *[hilaˈmæŋgo] > *[helˈmæŋgo] > *[çelʲˈmʲæŋgo] > *[ʃeʎˈɲago] > [ʃejˈɲago]…
-The placement of 1 is perhaps the hardest part of all of this for me, since it's different from 2-3 in a number of ways (namely those mentioned above), but it also seems to fit with them rather well in other ways: they all have initial [p-] in the first word, they all have initial [CV(j)-] in the third word, 1 and 3 agree in terms of their final vowels, and there's this correspondence of [tʃʼ tʃ] (1) - [tsʼ ts] (2) - [ɟ c] (3).
As you'll see in your question about grouping, this one is correct in general, but there is another split in the group, as you have alluded to, so your difficulty in placing Language 1 is understandable.

Your second assumption about where the [-j-] came from in Word 3 of Language 1 was well spotted [;)]


shimobaatar wrote:
05 Jan 2020 20:39
Group B
[ˈpʼaːtsʼæ] - [ɲeˈtuka] - [hilˈmæːŋa] (4)
[ˈautsʼa] - [ɲiˈtuka] - [hilˈmaiɲa] (5)
< *[ˈpʼaːtsʼæ] - *[ɲeˈtuka] - *[hilˈmæːŋa] (Proto-B)

Notes:
-I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the words in Proto-B ending up identical to the words in 4, but that's what makes sense to me at the moment.
Despite your lack of comfort about your reconstruction here, they're actually spot on [:D]


shimobaatar wrote:
05 Jan 2020 20:39
Group C
[ˈpʼatis] - [ɲæˈtug] - [hilæˈmæŋ] (6)
[ˈpadizæ] - [ãˈtuː] - [ilaˈmãː] (7)
< *[ˈpʼatisæ] - *[ɲaˈtug] - *[hilaˈmæŋ] (Proto-C)

Notes:
-I'm not entirely confident in my assumption of [ɲa-] > [ã-] for the second word in 7, but I suppose I'm sticking with it for now. Given what seems to have happened at the end of the third word, I suppose I could assume that metathesis occurred: [ɲa-] > [aɲ-] > [ã-]. If that were the case, the fact that the nasal vowel is long in the third word but not the second could have something to do with stress. However, given the fact that only two languages, 1 and 7, don't have initial [CV-] for the second word, and given the fact that 1 and 7 are spoken quite far away from one another, I'm not sure if it makes sense to me to assume that those two languages alone independently metathesized the first syllable of the second word for, as far as I can tell, no reason. As noted above, I'm no longer even sure that metathesis took place in the third word, although that may be more likely, considering it appears to have happened in four of the ten languages, three of which are quite close together.
As with Proto-B, the reconstructions are spot-on (well, actually, apart from the first vowel of Word 2).


shimobaatar wrote:
05 Jan 2020 20:39
Group D
[ˈbadis] - [jaˈtukʼa] - [ilˈmeŋgi] (8)
[ˈbaris] - [ʑæˈtuga] - [ilˈmægi] (9)
[ˈbalisa] - [dʑæˈtukːa] - [læˈmæga] (10)
< *[ˈbadisa] - *[jæˈtukːa] - *[ilˈmæŋgi] (Proto-D)

Notes:
-I'm not 100% sure about the [kʼ] (8) - [g] (9) - [kː] (10) correspondence in the second word. The [d] (8) - [r] (9) - [l] (10) and [j] (8) - [ʑ] (9) - [dʑ] (10) correspondences in the first and second words, respectively, also feel somewhat off to me, although not entirely implausible.
-This is another grouping that I'm not too certain about. In some ways (no final vowel in the first word, final [-i] and initial [il-] in the third word), 8-9 feel closer to one another than to 10, but in other ways (a medial liquid in the first word, initial [(d)ʑæ-] in the second word, medial [-æg-] in the third word), 9-10 feel closer to one another than to 8. Of course, all three also appear to share some common features.
As with Group A, you've spotted that this one can be broken down into smaller groups, which could help reconstruction the words for Proto-D. Regardless of that, though, the reconstructions you have are pretty darn close.


shimobaatar wrote:
05 Jan 2020 20:39
*[ˈpacʼise] - *[ɲaˈcikːa] - *[leˈmæŋgo] (Proto-A)
*[ˈpʼaːtsʼæ] - *[ɲeˈtuka] - *[hilˈmæːŋa] (Proto-B)
*[ˈpʼatisæ] - *[ɲaˈtug] - *[hilaˈmæŋ] (Proto-C)
*[ˈbadisa] - *[jæˈtukːa] - *[ilˈmæŋgi] (Proto-D)
< **[ˈpʼatʼisæ] - **[ɲæˈtukːa] - **[hilaˈmæŋgo] (Proto-ABCD)

Notes:
-The [-i-] in the stressed syllable of the second word in Proto-A stands out to me, compared to the [-u-] present elsewhere, but I suppose [u] > [y] > [i] isn't too strange. A bigger problem, I suppose, is the [o] (A) - [a] (B) - [Ø] (C) - [i] (D) correspondence for the final vowel of the third word.
-I'm also kind of unsure about some of the low vowels, but I guess I'm not as concerned about that.
-I'm currently unsure exactly how to explain the long vowels in the first and third words in Proto-B.
As I mentioned above, your current reconstructions are remarkably close.

Your thought on the Proto-A [-i-] in Word 1 is spot on, i.e. it's an example iotacism, but your reconstruction of the final vowel of Word 3 for Proto-ABCD? Perfect [:D] I'm sure you'll figure out what happened to the stressed vowels in Proto-B, but it looks like you're managing just fine without it [:)]

As I've mentioned to others, what might help is looking at how the groups might be more closely related to each other at older time-depths, which could help pin down more specifically what each proto-word might be (I think recognising older relationships might help you figure out some of the things you're unsure of, for example).

shimobaatar wrote:
05 Jan 2020 20:39
If I might ask:

Are all sub-groupings within the family equal in size/number of "members"? Are there any that consist of just a single language?
Of course you can ask [:)] No, not all of the groups are of equal size, as least at the more recent levels, and, yes, some of the more recent splits involve a language splitting off on its own. At older time-depths, though, they're more or less of equal "size".
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.

ɶʙ ɞʛ
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 167
Joined: 02 Aug 2019 18:47

Re: Quick Diachronics Challenge

Post by ɶʙ ɞʛ » 20 Jan 2020 05:05

My new guess: (maybe a 9-vowel system, /i ɨ u e ə o æ a ɒ/, to start with?)

*'pat'isæ
*aɲɟa'tɨk'a
*hila'mangjɒ

Post Reply