Zompist Bboard Again

It's none of these.

It is indeed a variety of Romani, but which one?

It's indeed Indo-Iranian, but not Pashto.

It is indeed IE, but not Balto-Slavic.

Here's a sample. It's rather short, since I wasn't able to find anything longer without spoiling the name of the language, but I think it's enough to guess the language.

i kūrako čōrajs i kotə kīral, flīgajs ap i ruk unt kamajs pesko kīral te chan.

Ainu?

It's a Mascoian language, but that's all I can guess, they all look pretty alike.

The diacritics are indeed tone markers (however they aren't based on the IPA) and <øe> is indeed a single vowel.

Mangmetong: /p t ʦ ʧ k ʔ/ <p t ts j k '> /pʰ tʰ ʦʰ ʧʰ kʰ/ <ph th ths ch kh> /m n ŋ/ <m n ng> /m̥ n̥ ŋ̊/ <mh nh ngh> /s z h/ <s~sh z~zh h> /w ɹ l j/ <w r l y> /w̥ ɹ̥ l̥ j̊/ <wh rh lh yh> /i u ə a a̰/ <i u e a aa> /á a à/ <á a à> /wàzàʔ tə̀luʔ la tsəpàʔ məsəm wa || təɹ | kʰə̀liŋlì, təɹ wàzàʔ təniŋ à l...

Here are two mutually intelligible dialects of a Sino-Tibetan (Kuki-Chin-Naga) language of northern India (Nagaland). The current orthography is tailored to another, closely related language (Chungli Ao) and is insufficient, underdifferentiating in some ways (not marking tone) but also overdifferent...

No.

No.

No.

It indeed isn't Tibetic.

No.

It isn't Loloish.

It is indeed Sino-Tibetan.

No.

Tiˆvaˇ nøeˇ miq ni- yuˆbeˇ rungˆlaˇ tungˆ tˆṅaˇ, taˆniˆ vaˇniˆ rweˆyerˆ aˆroq, Mun-riˇtˆṅaˇ. I-røeˇ :kaˇmøeˇ tiˆkaˇ vaq, kˆmøeˇ maˆmaˆ nøe- tungˆlat ṅaˇmøeˇ i-ruq, tˆniˆ vaˇniˆ mik, nøe- veˆ kˆmøeˇ haˆniˆ mik, nøe- pat tˆṅaˇ. I-røeˇ :kaˆmøeˇ yaˇkaˇ yuˆbeˆ ni- miq lap :kiˆmunˆ miq ṅaˇ. Nøe- mik nøe-...

Is it Ngkolmpu then?