Zompist Bboard Again

In the source these changes are varying presented in standard notation, or in text which I have notated as accurately as possible. I've elected to leave it in Slavicist notation rather than changing to IPA, as precise realisations of reconstructed phonemes are unknown. For nomenclature, Cubberley prefers "Slavonic" to "Slavic" which I have followed, but changing it to "Slavic" might make sense later on for consistency's sake. He also uses "Old Russian" and "Early East Slavonic" interchangeably; I chose "Old Russian" for no reason whatsoever.
Wrt my ratings below: Ordering is mostly good but occasionally switches to thematic rather than chronological ordering which isn't always decypherable - a few specifically Old Russian changes are discussed in the Late Proto-Slavonic section which leaves ambiguity about where they sit in relation to other Old Russian changes; but it's consistent enough that I've noted when ordering is lost. Exhaustivity seems to be pretty good but some minor changes are probably excluded for simplicity's sake since it's an "introduction" rather than a change-by-change list. Detail is good with environments almost always specified (although sometimes 90 pages later in an unrelated section), but then there's also a few changes like "simplification or reorganisation of unacceptable clusters (usually of falling sonority)" or "assimilation of voice in obstruents" without going into any specifics. Consensus is basically as good as it gets. Transcription of the changes themselves I'm confident with, but the Slavicist/slightly outdated IPA notation isn't super clear especially with a distinction between palatals with <’> and palatals with <'> which are sometimes interchangeable and sometimes not; I think the former is "(alveolo-) palatal" and the latter is "soft" but it's never explained.
For now I've treated each set of reconstructed phonemes separately, but I could probably condense it into one list without losing too much information.

---

Reference: Cubberley, P. "Russian: A Linguistic Introduction". Cambridge University Press 2002.
Transcribed by: Darren
Reviewed by: (none)
Ordering ★★☆
Exhaustivity ★★☆
Detail ★★☆
Consensus ★★★
Transcription ★★☆


Early Proto-Slavonic to Late Proto-Slavonic

Reconstructed phonemes for Early Proto-Slavonic:

Symbol	Likely IPA	Notes
*p	[p]
*t	[t]
*k	[k]
*b	[​b]
*d	[d]
*g	[ɡ]
*m	[m]
*n	[n]
*s	[s]
*x	[x~ʃ]	"others believe its initial result was [š]"
*v	[v]
*z	[z]
*j	[j~ʝ]	listed as a palatal fricative, but probably a semi-vowel
*ɣ	[ɣ]	dialectal variant of *g
*w	[w~β]	dialectal variants of *v
*r	[r]	realisation not discussed, assumed to be a trill
*l	[l]
*ĭ	[​i]
*ī	[iː]
*ŭ	[​u]
*ū	[uː]
*ₑă	[æ]	listed as a front low vowel
*ₑā	[æː]
*ₒă	[ɒ]	described as a "low back rounded vowel"
*ₒā	[ɒː]
*ₒăi̯	[ɒi̯]
*ₑăi̯	[æi̯]
*ₒău̯	[ɒu̯]
*ₑău̯	[æu̯]

Suprasegmental features:

• Contrastive ("free") stress
• "Tone/pitch" consisting of "automatic acute on long vowels; diphthongs may have acute or circumflex"; "acute" describes "rising" and "circumflex" describes "non-rising".

*k g x → *k' g' x' /_{*ĭ ī ₑă ₑā}, {*ĭ ī ₑă ₑā}_ ("fronting of the velars in the vicinity [...] of a front vowel")
*Cj → *C’
*kt gt → *t’
*k’ g’ x’ → *č’ dž’,ž’ š’ ("the results of *g' depend on the stop or fricative nature of this phoneme; the stop *g' gives *dž' [...] the fricative *ɣ' gives *ž'")
*C → Ø /_#
"simplification or reorganisation of unacceptable clusters (usually of falling sonority)"
*ₒă → *o
*ₒā → *a (possibly "via *oá")
*ₑă → *e
*ₑā → *ě (possibly "via *eá")
*ĭ → *ь
*ī → *i
*ŭ → *ъ
*ū → *y (possibly "via *uí")
*oi̯ → *ě, i
*ai̯ → *i (through *e)
*ou̯ → *u
*eu̯ → *(j)u
*{e ь} {m n} → *ę
*{o ъ} {m n} → *ǫ
*k g x → *c' dz',z' s',š' /_{ě i} ("the variants for *g [...] probably initially related to the stop versus fricative nature of *g)
*k g x → *c' dz',z' s',š' /i(N)_ !_{i,y,u,o} (subject to "analogical levelling" by which palatals would appear preceding *i y u o if elsewhere in the paradigm a different vowel followed the consonant)
*u ъ o ǫ a ě → *ü ь e ǫ̈ ä a /C'_ (for *a "a fronted *ä was the result in most areas [...] however, the ultimate result in all areas was a reflex of *a" merging with *ě in that position; *ъ o also merge with *ь e here but *u ǫ remain separate from *i ę)
*V [+tone] → *V [–tone] /_ unstressed
*V [+rising tone] → *V [–long][+rising tone] ("the opposition [...] being between 'short + rising' and 'long + non-rising', while the remaining short vowels [...] were automatically non-rising")


Late Proto-Slavonic to Old Russian

Reconstructed phonemes for Late Proto-Slavonic:

Symbol	Likely IPA	Notes
*p	[p]
*t	[t]
*t’	[tʲ~c]	listed as a palatal stop
*k	[k]
*b	[​b]
*d	[d]
*d’	[dʲ~ɟ]	listed as a palatal stop
*g	[ɡ]
*m	[m]
*n	[n]
*n’	[nʲ~ɲ]	listed as palatal
*s	[s]
*s'	[sʲ]	"regional or temporal variant"
*š’	[ɕ~ʃ]	listed as a palatal fricative
*x	[x]
*v	[v]
*z	[z]
*z'	[zʲ]	"regional or temporal variant"
*ž’	[ʑ~ʒ]	listed as a palatal fricative
*ɣ	[ɣ]	dialectal variant of *g
*w	[w~β]	dialectal variant of *v
*j	[j]	listed as a palatal fricative
*c'	[tsʲ]
*č’	[t͡ɕ~t͡ʃ]	listed as a palatal affricate
*dz'	[dzʲ]	"regional or temporal variant"
*dž’	[d͡ʑ~d͡ʒ]	listed as a palatal affricate, "regional or temporal variant"
*r	[r]	realisation not discussed, assumed to be a trill
*r’	[rʲ]
*l	[l]
*l’	[lʲ~ʎ]	listed as a palatal liquid
*i	[​i]
*y	[ɨ]
*u	[​u]
*ь	[ĭ]
*ъ	[ŭ~ə]	given as [ŭ~ə]; "rounding was not strong"
*e	[ɛ]	listed as "mid-low"
*ę	[ɛ̃]	listed as "mid-low"
*o	[ɔ~ʌ]	listed as "mid-low"; ]"rounding was not strong"
*ǫ	[ɔ̃]	listed as "mid-low"
*ě	[æ~i̯a~i̯æ~ɛ~e]	described as [ä], "a low front unrounded vowel" but possibly also a "rising diphthong of the [ia]/[iä] type" or "shifted to a higher position"
*a	[a]
*ü	[y?]	fronted allophone of *u following palatal consonants
*ǫ̈	[œ̃?]	fronted allophone of *ǫ following palatal consonants
*ä	[æ?]	fronted allophone of *a following palatal consonants, but distinct from *ě in some dialects

Suprasegmental features:

• Contrastive ("free") stress
• "Quantity" consisting of "automatic short on *a, *y and former short (*o, *e, *ъ, *ь); free on rest"
• "Tone/pitch" consisting of "double opposition between new short acute [rising] and former long circumflex [non-rising]".

*t' st' → č' šč'
*d' zd' → dž' ("then mostly > ž') ždž'
*dz' → z'
*g → g ("north")
*g → ɣ ("south")
*v → v ("north")
*v → β, w ("south")
*ę ǫ → ä u (*ä "later merged with a")
*tl dl → l
*oRC → RoC /_[non-rising pitch]
*oRC → RaC /_[rising pitch]*a ä → jä /#_
*ě → je /#_
*e → o /#_
*o → wo /#_ (with "neo-acute" pitch)
*o → o /_ under "neo-acute" pitch (note that *o was [ɔ] and retained as such elsewhere)
contrastive pitch lost
*oRC → RoC /#_[non-rising pitch] (ordering not noted)
*oRC → RaC /#_[rising pitch] (ordering not noted)
*CoRC → CoˈRoC /_[rising pitch] (ordering not noted)
*CoRC → ˈCoRoC /_[non-rising pitch] (ordering not noted)
*CeRC → CeˈReC /_[rising pitch] (ordering not noted)
*CeRC → ˈCeReC /_[non-rising pitch] (ordering not noted)
*p’ b’ m’ v’ → *pl’ bl’ ml’ vl’ (ordering not noted)



Old Russian to Modern Russian

Transcription of phonemes for Old Russian:

Symbol	Likely IPA	Notes
p	[p]
t	[t]
k	[k]
b	[​b]
d	[d]
g	[ɡ]	Northern Old Russian corresponding to Southern Old Russian ɣ
m	[m]
n	[n]
n'	[nʲ~ɲ]	"may have still been palatal at the early stage"
s	[s]
s'	[sʲ~ɕ]	"may have still been palatal at the early stage"
š’	[ɕ~ʃ]	listed as a palatal fricative
x	[x]
v	[v~β~w]	dialectal variants
z	[z]
z'	[zʲ]	"regional or temporal variant"
ž’	[ʑ~ʒ]	listed as a palatal fricative
ɣ	[ɣ]	Southern Old Russian corresponding to Northern Old Russian g
j	[j]	listed as a palatal fricative
c'	[t͡sʲ~t͡ɕ]	"may have still been palatal at the early stage"
č’	[t͡ɕ~t͡ʃ]	listed as a palatal affricate
dz'	[dzʲ~d͡ʑ]	early Old Russian only, "may have still been palatal at the early stage"
dž’	[d͡ʑ~d͡ʒ]	early Old Russian only, listed as a palatal affricate
r	[r]	realisation not discussed, assumed to be a trill
r'	[rʲ~?]	"may have still been palatal at the early stage"
l	[l]
l'	[lʲ~ʎ]	"may have still been palatal at the early stage"
i	[​i]
y	[ɨ]
u	[​u]
ь	[ĭ]
ъ	[ŭ~ə]
e	[e]
o	[o]
ɛ	[ɛ]
ɔ	[ɔ]
a	[a]
ü	[y?]	fronted allophone of *u following palatal consonants
ä	[æ?]	fronted allophone of *a following palatal consonants
i̯e u̯o	[i̯e u̯o]	"regional variants high e, o"

Suprasegmental features:

• Contrastive ("free") stress

r’ l’ n’ s’ z’ → r' l' n' s' z'
c’ dz’ → c dz (c = IPA /t͡s/)
dz' → z'
dž’ → ž’
ъ ь → Ø /$_, _$ (where $ is a syllable containing a non-yer vowel)
ъ ь → Ø /{ъ ь}(C...C)_ (alternating yers are lost)
ъ ь → ɔ ɛ (elsewhere)
o → ɔ (except in non-standard dialects)
e → ɛ (except in non-standard dialects)
{i y} → i~y ("[becoming] allophones of the same phoneme, the first following soft [palatalised], the second following hard [non-palatalised] consonants")
ä ü → a u /C'_
o a u → ö ä ü /C'_C' (allophonic)
b d dz g v z z' ž’ → p t c k f s s' š' /_#
"assimilation of voice in obstruents" (conditions not described)
ɛ → ɔ /_[+stress]C[–soft]
{a ɔ} {ɛ i} → V₁ V₂ /_[–stress] ("fusion of /a/ and /o/ and /e/ and /i/ in [unstressed] position; actual results vary greatly by dialect")
ě → ɛ (merger with ɛ; "Central Russian dialects only")

Ooh, thanks very much for this! I don’t know enough about Slavic to properly review this, so for now I’ll merely mention a few notational quibbles:

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:11 am I've elected to leave it in Slavicist notation rather than changing to IPA, as precise realisations of reconstructed phonemes are unknown.

I presume the non-asterisked symbols are IPA, though? (Except in the Russian section, where all the asterisks seem to have disappeared… even the yuses! For that matter, how do we know the phonological identity of the yuses?)

EDIT: No, apparently they aren’t IPA, at least going by the content of the last table. I’m honestly not sure how to handle such a case consistently… should I perhaps redo my Polynesian changes to use the original transcription for non-asterisked symbols?

For nomenclature, Cubberley prefers "Slavonic" to "Slavic" which I have followed, but changing it to "Slavic" might make sense later on for consistency's sake. He also uses "Old Russian" and "Early East Slavonic" interchangeably; I chose "Old Russian" for no reason whatsoever.

I’ve been considering standardising on the naming of ISO 639, or possibly Glottolog for things not covered by ISO.

For now I've treated each set of reconstructed phonemes separately, but I could probably condense it into one list without losing too much information.

I’ve been making these tables per-source; is that possible in your case or not?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:31 am Ooh, thanks very much for this! I don’t know enough about Slavic to properly review this, so for now I’ll merely mention a few notational quibbles:

Neither do I unfortunately. I just have the book.

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 2:11 am I've elected to leave it in Slavicist notation rather than changing to IPA, as precise realisations of reconstructed phonemes are unknown.

I presume the non-asterisked symbols are IPA, though? (Except in the Russian section, where all the asterisks seem to have disappeared… even the yuses! For that matter, how do we know the phonological identity of the yuses?)

EDIT: No, apparently they aren’t IPA, at least going by the content of the last table. I’m honestly not sure how to handle such a case consistently… should I perhaps redo my Polynesian changes to use the original transcription for non-asterisked symbols?

The problem is that Old Russian is attested, so using asterisks would technically be "wrong"; but also the precise values still aren't known, so IPA isn't ideal. I've just left everything in Cubberley's notation, which is basically just transcription of early Cyrillic, for simplicity's sake. I think with Polynesian the lack of an old written language means that you can just equate reconstructed = non-IPA, non-reconstructed = IPA which is sensible enough. Problem is that's not consistent with this system, and it would need specification at the start of each family. Maybe we could just make it a convention to use † as an asterisk-equivalent for written extinct languages, and put all non-asterisked stuff in IPA. It would only really crop up in Slavic, Germanic, Greek and Romance anyway.


As for the yuses, you could equally ask how we know the value of any reconstruced phoneme. From my understanding:

- *ę ǫ become /ɛ̃ ɔ̃/ in Polish
- *ę ǫ become /ɛ u/ in Russian
- *ǫ fronts to *ǫ̈ after palatals, while *o becomes *e, suggesting that *ǫ was more rounded than *o; *o isn't usually a markedly rounded vowel in Slavic (merging with *a in PS, fronting to *e, ɛ backing to it in some cases, merger with a in unstressed syllables)
- *ę causes palatalisation like *e

I’ve been considering standardising on the naming of ISO 639, or possibly Glottolog for things not covered by ISO.

Works for living languages at least. I think I'll probably change it all to "-Slavic" since that seems to be the concensus literary term.

For now I've treated each set of reconstructed phonemes separately, but I could probably condense it into one list without losing too much information.

I’ve been making these tables per-source; is that possible in your case or not?

It's all one source and the transcription is consistent, but in some cases there are notes for individual stages which I feel merit inclusion. The current format is redundant for a lot of stuff though. Maybe I could give a general key to all symbols at the beginning, and then just note any divergences at the stage they occur?

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 3:00 am The problem is that Old Russian is attested, so using asterisks would technically be "wrong"

In this context, I’ve been taking ‘attested’ to mean ‘its phonological value is attested’ — through an articulatory description, or through IPA, or through a spectrogram, and so on. I think this is reasonable enough for our purposes.

I think with Polynesian the lack of an old written language means that you can just equate reconstructed = non-IPA, non-reconstructed = IPA which is sensible enough.

Not necessarily! Biggs uses some Americanist notation like [č].

After some further thought, I’m coming round to the opinion that everything should be transcribed as in the original source. The only change we would make is to add asterisks when appropriate. (Which, for that matter, most sources include anyway!) Then, to avoid ridiculously long tables at the beginning, we can set up a convention that symbols are included in the explanatory table only when used differently to IPA. Thus, ⟨*t⟩ and ⟨č⟩ would be associated with their IPA transcriptions, while ⟨t⟩ would be [t] unless otherwise specified.

(I hope that made sense…)

As for the yuses, you could equally ask how we know the value of any reconstruced phoneme.

Ah, I was wondering if their phonetics were directly attested. But surely they should get an asterisk if they’re reconstructed?

For now I've treated each set of reconstructed phonemes separately, but I could probably condense it into one list without losing too much information.

I’ve been making these tables per-source; is that possible in your case or not?

It's all one source and the transcription is consistent, but in some cases there are notes for individual stages which I feel merit inclusion. The current format is redundant for a lot of stuff though. Maybe I could give a general key to all symbols at the beginning, and then just note any divergences at the stage they occur?

Hmm, I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘divergences’… could you give a specific example?

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 3:11 am

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 3:00 am The problem is that Old Russian is attested, so using asterisks would technically be "wrong"

In this context, I’ve been taking ‘attested’ to mean ‘its phonological value is attested’ — through an articulatory description, or through IPA, or through a spectrogram, and so on. I think this is reasonable enough for our purposes.

I guess that makes sense, it just feels a bit counter-intuitive. It also means that it isn't obvious which stages are entirely reconstructed through the comparitive method, and which are attested but with reconstructed phonetics.

After some further thought, I’m coming round to the opinion that everything should be transcribed as in the original source. The only change we would make is to add asterisks when appropriate. (Which, for that matter, most sources include anyway!) Then, to avoid ridiculously long tables at the beginning, we can set up a convention that symbols are included in the explanatory table only when used differently to IPA. Thus, ⟨*t⟩ and ⟨č⟩ would be associated with their IPA transcriptions, while ⟨t⟩ would be [t] unless otherwise specified.

(I hope that made sense…)

Yeah that seems fair enough. How would you go about mashing that in with the search function?

Hmm, I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘divergences’… could you give a specific example?

Like how the soft dentals "may have still been palatal at the early stage" in Old Russian; so *s' could variably be [ɕ] or [sʲ], whereas in other stages it's always just [sʲ].

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 4:52 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 3:11 am

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 3:00 am The problem is that Old Russian is attested, so using asterisks would technically be "wrong"

In this context, I’ve been taking ‘attested’ to mean ‘its phonological value is attested’ — through an articulatory description, or through IPA, or through a spectrogram, and so on. I think this is reasonable enough for our purposes.

I guess that makes sense, it just feels a bit counter-intuitive. It also means that it isn't obvious which stages are entirely reconstructed through the comparitive method, and which are attested but with reconstructed phonetics.

Oh, that’s a really good point. I like your dagger idea, then.

After some further thought, I’m coming round to the opinion that everything should be transcribed as in the original source. The only change we would make is to add asterisks when appropriate. (Which, for that matter, most sources include anyway!) Then, to avoid ridiculously long tables at the beginning, we can set up a convention that symbols are included in the explanatory table only when used differently to IPA. Thus, ⟨*t⟩ and ⟨č⟩ would be associated with their IPA transcriptions, while ⟨t⟩ would be [t] unless otherwise specified.

(I hope that made sense…)

Yeah that seems fair enough. How would you go about mashing that in with the search function?

I was thinking that search could be entirely IPA-based. Then reconstructed phonemes are counted as a match if at least one of their possible realisations matches the search. (This is why I was so careful to give everything an IPA correspondence in Polynesian, and to transcribe everything in symbols as much as possible even when it wasn’t entirely clear from the text.)

Hmm, I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘divergences’… could you give a specific example?

Like how the soft dentals "may have still been palatal at the early stage" in Old Russian; so *s' could variably be [ɕ] or [sʲ], whereas in other stages it's always just [sʲ].

Ah, interesting. I’ll need to think about the best way of handling this.

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 5:30 am

Hmm, I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘divergences’… could you give a specific example?

Like how the soft dentals "may have still been palatal at the early stage" in Old Russian; so *s' could variably be [ɕ] or [sʲ], whereas in other stages it's always just [sʲ].

Ah, interesting. I’ll need to think about the best way of handling this.

An idea on this: maybe there’s an argument for altering the transcription in this case? We could, say, use *s'₁ for the Old Russian sound and *s'₂ for the later sound. (We could even use something like *s'_{Old Russian} and *s'_Russian, if we wanted to be really clear about it.)

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 6:08 am

bradrn wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 5:30 am

Like how the soft dentals "may have still been palatal at the early stage" in Old Russian; so *s' could variably be [ɕ] or [sʲ], whereas in other stages it's always just [sʲ].

Ah, interesting. I’ll need to think about the best way of handling this.

An idea on this: maybe there’s an argument for altering the transcription in this case? We could, say, use *s'₁ for the Old Russian sound and *s'₂ for the later sound. (We could even use something like *s'_{Old Russian} and *s'_Russian, if we wanted to be really clear about it.)

I think maybe I could just note at the beginning like

Symbol	Likely IPA	Notes
*s'	[sʲ~ɕ]	"may have still been palatal at the early stage" in Old Russian, otherwise [sʲ] in other stages

Although I just realised that doesn't work cos it would mess with the search function :/
We could also do something a bit bludgey like

Symbol	Likely IPA	Notes
*s´	[sʲ~ɕ]	"may have still been palatal at the early stage" in Old Russian only
*s'	[sʲ]

But that has its own problem of adding a third type of apostrophe, which would be clear to the search function but confusing to readers.

I think your solution may be the best compromise.

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 3:00 am - *ę ǫ become /ɛ̃ ɔ̃/ in Polish

In a sense, yes; in a sense, no. They merge as Middle Polish ø, then short and long ø become /ɛ̃ ɔ̃/.

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 6:25 pm

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 3:00 am - *ę ǫ become /ɛ̃ ɔ̃/ in Polish

In a sense, yes; in a sense, no. They merge as Middle Polish ø, then short and long ø become /ɛ̃ ɔ̃/.

Ah ok. That's weird.

Would you happen to have any good sources on Polish changes? There's definitely some good data out there but nothing afaict online.

Darren wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:33 pm Would you happen to have any good sources on Polish changes? There's definitely some good data out there but nothing afaict online.

Stieber 1973, A Historical Phonology of the Polish Language

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:55 pm Stieber 1973, A Historical Phonology of the Polish Language

Would you be able to post a full list of changes?

Darren wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:55 pm Stieber 1973, A Historical Phonology of the Polish Language

Would you be able to post a full list of changes?

I'm working on Albanian but can try to get Polish after that

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 10:37 pm

Darren wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:55 pm Stieber 1973, A Historical Phonology of the Polish Language

Would you be able to post a full list of changes?

I'm working on Albanian but can try to get Polish after that

Great!

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 10:37 pm

Darren wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 8:26 pm

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:55 pm Stieber 1973, A Historical Phonology of the Polish Language

Would you be able to post a full list of changes?

I'm working on Albanian but can try to get Polish after that

I’ve got Shevelov’s A Prehistory of Slavic and Xiadz Faust’s old write-up.

Darren wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:33 pm

Nortaneous wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2023 6:25 pm

Darren wrote: ↑Sat Sep 30, 2023 3:00 am - *ę ǫ become /ɛ̃ ɔ̃/ in Polish

In a sense, yes; in a sense, no. They merge as Middle Polish ø, then short and long ø become /ɛ̃ ɔ̃/.

Ah ok. That's weird.

Would you happen to have any good sources on Polish changes? There's definitely some good data out there but nothing afaict online.

Middle Polish had a length distinction like in Czech/Slovak which disappeared into a purely quality distinction... which is where we get o vs ó. The Middle Polish ø could've done the same, with what "should have" been written ø and ǿ ending up as ę and ą respectively. I think.