Zompist Bboard Again

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:01 pm

dhok wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:50 amWhere did C ə:s go in B?

Based on the vowel correspondence alone, I wonder if it could actually be the cognate of B ɔɪdɪː. -ɪː seems to be a suffix in B, and based on B ɣɪtɪz ~ C ɣes, I suspect that C underwent a simplification *ts > s at some stage (for B -ɪz ~ C -s after a voiceless stop, see βəgɪz ~ wʉks). So we could have *əɪts for proto-BC

B nädɪ: corresponds to C næde:. This could conceivably be a borrowing--it's difficult to figure out what happens to final long vowels in C; at least some instances look like inflectional endings whose presence is not determined by historical phonology alone--and the affrication has a little bit of parallel in B de~C dzə. But based on other data, of course, that looks more likely to be a case of *de > djə > dzə (are we sure it isn't dʒə)?

If you are right, however, B~C ɣɪtɪz~ɣes (sentence 1) is intriguing. Taken together these may suggest palatalization of *t to /s/ before (or after?) /ɪ/. (The -ɪz suffix of B looks probably to be the same clitic that created wä:z from *wæn.)

The more I stare at this material the more all the diachronic phonology and sound changes fall into two categories: the low vowels, and stamp collecting.

By far the most common correspondences among the low vowels are æ~ä~æ, a~ɑ~ä , and ɐ~ɔ~ɑ, which I might tentatively reconstruct as *æ, *a, and *ɔ, respectively. This leaves a few mysteries, such as the ɑ~æ~ə correspondence, which could be explained quite easily with a fourth vowel, *ɐ. There are still a few loose ends, such as the several different processes that must be necessary to explain every instance of ɪ in Language B. But the basics are worked out. The collapsing diphthongs in A, the nasal lengthening in B, almost everything can be explained.

EDIT: I seem to have interrupted Kath's conversation. Just imagine a little arrow connecting the post below this one to the post above it.

You seem to have missed that the -ɪz suffix in B has an exact cognate in C -s/z, and similarly B -ɪð ~ C -d. I can cite 5 certain word-equations, and a handful more likely cases, showing the correspondence. If these suffixes are clitics, then they're common to BC.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:18 pm You seem to have missed that the -ɪz suffix in B has an exact cognate in C -s/z, and similarly B -ɪð ~ C -d. I can cite 5 certain word-equations, and a handful more likely cases, showing the correspondence. If these suffixes are clitics, then they're common to BC.

I hadn't missed them so much as passed them over, focusing more on the stamp-collecting, as Moose-tache calls it.

Alternation ɾɛpäk~ɾɛpäke: in 10C shows that there is also a clitic/suffix *e:/ɪ: or thereabouts.

That one looks perhaps original to the proto-language. There are three three-shot correspondences that go e:/ɪ:/e:: ðɾe:ge: in 4, dʒɑhe: in 3, zlɐɪ.e: in 5. But there are also two examples of A -ɛ:...possibly not the same as -e: but let's consider them together for now...corresponding to -oz~-uz in B and C. Those are rɐkɐʒɛ:~rɔkɔʃoz~rɑk'ɑtʃuz in 4 and sɐɪnje:~sɔ:ɪjoz~sə:njuz in 10. What this means is not clear.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:08 pm Regarding subgrouping, it seems to me that there isn't a simple phylogeny at work here.

How so? It looks certain that there are some borrowings here and there, but unless one language is a creole or something like that...

dhok wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:42 pm

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:18 pm You seem to have missed that the -ɪz suffix in B has an exact cognate in C -s/z, and similarly B -ɪð ~ C -d. I can cite 5 certain word-equations, and a handful more likely cases, showing the correspondence. If these suffixes are clitics, then they're common to BC.

I hadn't missed them so much as passed them over, focusing more on the stamp-collecting, as Moose-tache calls it.

Well, you definitely need to consider them, as they account for a number of finals in C without recourse to ad-hoc changes like C *t > s via "palatalisation". (On the contrary, a genuine case of palatalisation of C *t is βätsəɾn, showing the ɛː ~ e ~ (j)ə vowel correspondence.)

Alternation ɾɛpäk~ɾɛpäke: in 10C shows that there is also a clitic/suffix *e:/ɪ: or thereabouts.

That one looks perhaps original to the proto-language. There are three three-shot correspondences that go e:/ɪ:/e:: ðɾe:ge: in 4, dʒɑhe: in 3, zlɐɪ.e: in 5. But there are also two examples of A -ɛ:...possibly not the same as -e: but let's consider them together for now...corresponding to -oz~-uz in B and C. Those are rɐkɐʒɛ:~rɔkɔʃoz~rɑk'ɑtʃuz in 4 and sɐɪnje:~sɔ:ɪjoz~sə:njuz in 10. What this means is not clear.

I agree that C has a suffix -eː, and we can compare it with the suffix -ɪː in B - as you observe, the vowel correspondence is perfect. The A words ending in -ɛː are clearly unconnected, and is unlikely to represent a suffix. A doesn't seem to have *any* suffixes.

How so? It looks certain that there are some borrowings here and there, but unless one language is a creole or something like that...

Well, I mean that I think the most likely scenario is not a classical tree structure, instead having a "messy" break-up. Of course, you could always view this as a three-way split...

@Sal: a few more queries... Is 10C dɑʃɛ correct, or should it be dɑtʃɛ? Is 6A kɾɐɪʒɛ correct, or should it be kɾɐɪʒɛː?

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:02 pm @Salmoneus: is bɘ in 11A an error for βɘ?

No, the stop is correct.

KathTheDragon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:03 pm @Sal: a few more queries... Is 10C dɑʃɛ correct, or should it be dɑtʃɛ? Is 6A kɾɐɪʒɛ correct, or should it be kɾɐɪʒɛː?

They are both correct - fricative not affricate, and short vowel not long. Although I can see why you might be suspicious...



I must say, this is quite fascinating - how some things are clearly very difficult, while other things you've worked out surprisingly quickly.

I don't think it's a spoiler to say at this point that it's interesting how just a little bit of morphological difference can make comparison disproportionately harder. It gives me an increased appreciation for (and suspicion of) linguists who do this in real life...

Yes, not knowing anything about morphology makes it absurd to try to pick apart words, and make the correct comparisons. Hence my surprise at the beginning that you chose not to give even a translation of the sentences.

If it's any consolation, all of these languages are largely isolating... I haven't counted the number of affixes in any language, but, discounting deeper derivational processes that you needn't worry about, we're only talking about a handful or so.

I thought I would scribble some musings about the plosives to pass the time.

The protolanguage had the following plosives: pʰ, p, b, tʰ, t, d, k', kʰ, and k. It's possible that b and d were p' and t' at some point in the past, but that's just speculation. There could also be a g making it slightly more symmetrical, but all instances of g can be explained without it.

In A, the ejective k' became g. Then something interesting happened. The voiceless and aspirated plosives all became voiced and unaspirated, respective, between vowels, and after a small number of words (consonant mutation?). Lastly the aspirates spirantized. The rare cases of intervocalic spirants may be the result of compounding.

Meanwhile in B/C the voiceless and aspirates plosives (except t) became voiced and unaspirated, respectively, in all positions. B then went on to repeat the same change of k' to g. There are one or two examples of k or p showing up in B or C without explanation, but for the most part these simple rules explain the pattern. I suspect there is also a k' prefix in C that is sending people off to look for correspondences in the deep dark woods.

It's entirely possible to reverse some of these steps, with initial fortition instead of intervocalic lenition, but I think this way works better. Also no doubt someone has come up with an elaborate way to derive k' from a cluster or something, but I like this change, including its red-herring repetition in two languages. I'm slightly embarrassed to admit I skimmed the PIE thread on this forum to see if Salmoneus thinks the glotallic hypothesis is unrealistic just in case. We all have our biases, after all.

I've ignored the affricates for now, and the voiced fricatives that may be alternations of plosives, but I'll get to them in a bit.

Bumping to say I haven't forgotten about this, just need to find a day to dive into everything

I'm not sure I can figure anything more out from the data I have.

I think it might be time for another bone, Sal. Without adding any new languages, you could maybe add morpheme boundaries to the sentences we already have?

Sorry I drifted away for a moment there... I should have something to add in the next day or two, family commitments permitting.

Perhaps it would be useful, both for you and for me, if you (pl.) formulated some specific questions/problems you feel have yet to be answered/solved?


I have one small question for you: you figured out early on that front rounded vowels in B are created by the presence of adjacent labial consonants... so does that mean labial consonants in B are only ever adjacent to rounded vowels? If not, why not?

A fourth language is up.

I may (or may not) be able to respond to anything over the next week, just so you know; not sure yet.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say all of A,B,C are more closely related to each other than any to D

From earlier, we had this issue:

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 9:17 am General transcription issue:
I'm a colossal idiot. You're quite right, /ʋ/ is a labiodental approximant and is not what I intended in the slightest. Well, not exactly. Where you see /ʋ/, just imagine a /ʉ/ instead (or indeed a /ʉ̞/ would be a bit more accurate, but the exact position doesn't really matter).

Now we have this:

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:10 pm A fourth language is up.

Salmoneus wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:57 pm D: dɹs ʊ getʃ tɹæɪ poːdʒəs in ti poːx i ʋikiːʋo kind

To confirm: the /ʋ/ here is indeed a labiodental approximant?

Yes.

ʔɐɪ ~ ɔɪd- ~ əː- ~ æɪtʃ < Eng. eat
m̊ɐɪ ~ mɔɪd ~ məːt ~ moɪ < Eng. meat
vaːðɛːɾæ ~ βɑʒɪteɾjɪː ~ βäːtsəɾn ~ ʋɑːʃɛɾ < Eng. vegetarian

A: ʔeːse ɾɛɸɐɪ wæ ʔaː ʒæ sɑ vuːɾ < ? repeat what I just (said?) (before??)
B: ɾɛpɔɪd nɑʊ wäd æɪð sɑð < repeat now what I'[d/ve] said
C: ɾɛpəːt dʒi nə: wæt æɪd säd ɜt < repeat (you?) now what I'[d/ve] said it
D: ɹpæɪ ji dɑːn wɛ æɪf dʒɛs sɑːt repeat (you?) (then?) what I've just said

Then again, 3:
A: ʔaː zɐɪ
B: æɪð sɔɪð
C: æɪd səːd
D: äːf sæɪ

I may have been the first to equate βɑʒɪteɾjɪ: to vegetarian in a PM to Sal about three weeks ago, but dropped the idea and didn't run with it.

Though somebody else was probably first.