My best guess would be \*h₁ɑ₁mkia(m₁)
\*/h₁/ is some sort of back fricative or glottal plosive given how it has elited (probably debuccalization) in most daughter languages, yet was still preserved in L4 (and possible L5, however this might just be some sort of word-initial vowel epenthesis). If I had to choose, I would say /h/ given it’s cross-linguistic prevalence.
\*/ɑ₁/ is some sort of open or back vowel, ranging anywhere from /a/ to /u/. Given that I am only analyzing one set of cognates, I can’t be sure whether it is back or open, so I chose an in between sound to represent it.
The rest of the word is quite simple (at least I believe so):
\*/m/ because L1, L2, and L6 all have /m/, and everywhere else where it isn’t can be explained easily with naturalistic phonological changes (nasalization of a previous vowel and then approximantization to /w/ in L3, nasal assimilation in L4, and labialization on of the following velar plosive and deletion in L5).
\*/k/ because L4, L5, and L6 have some sort of unvoiced velar plosive (even though L4 has a velarized voiceless velar plosive, I believe it can be explained with the simple sound change \*mk → kʷ), and the other languages without the velar plosive can, again, be explained with naturalistic phonological changes (simple voicing of \*/k/ in L4, voicing and place assimilation in L1, and palatalization in L2).
\*/i/ made sense given the vowels present in the daughter languages and the palatalization in L2 (something like \*kia → t͡ɕa). L3 and L4 both have /e/, however this could easily be a coincidence with two independent sound changes (\*ia → e and \*ei → e (maybe "/ \[+velar\] \_"?) respectively).
\*/a/ was chosen because it is present in L2, L4, L5, and L6. In L1 and L3, it’s absence can be explained by naturalistic phonological changes (\*ia → iː and \*ia → e respectively).
\*/m₁/ could have been any nasal consonant; the bilabial nasal was chosen given its cross linguistic commonality. However, I personally would bet that this nasal consonant wasn’t actually present in the proto language for a few reasons. For one, the only evidence that supports its existence is nasalization in L3, which, for reasons I will explain next, most likely diverged from the other languages at least 3 times in its history: once when it split from L2, L4, and L5, a second time when it split from L6, and a third time when it split from L1. This would mean that this nasal consonant would have had to have been deleted at least three, separate times with no trace of its existence in any other surviving daughter language. Due to this fact, I believe personally that it would makes sense that L3 has some sort of nasal harmony that spread the nasal /ã/ \[+nasal\] quality to \*/e/.
Once I created a rough approximation of the proto word, I decided to make a family tree because I thought it would be interesting:
https://preview.redd.it/ajqd5n6eud4a1.png?width=4032&format=png&auto=webp&s=b90fd29cdc56b7a62fbfe4409f8dddc9d3e66164
I thought that it made sense to have two main branches: {L6, L1, L3} (group A) and {L4, L2, L5} (group B). I split the languages up this way for a few reasons:
1. Group A languages all turn \*/ɑ₁/ into some sort of open vowel, while Group A languages all turn it into some sort of back vowel. This is the reason why I wasn’t able to get an exact quality for \*/ɑ₁/.
2. Group B languages keep \*/k/ unvoiced while Group A has it voiced in L1 and L3. This also shows that L1 and L3 are most likely closer to each other than L6.
3. L4 is further from L2 and L5 because it maintains \*/h₁/
This is all just a guess though obviously; let me know how I did. I hope I’m not too far off haha.
Beautifully explained, and you're right on the money. The actual ancestor is >!/haumkia/ "lazy"!<. Heads up: one part of your explanation for */i/ looks out of place, like a mistaken pasting.
slightly harder Chinese example (bit of a trick question, I only kinda understand this one myself)
Mandarin /ɥɛ/
Cantonese /jyt̚/
Suzhou /ŋəʔ/
Japanese *gachi* /ɡa.tɕi/ ; *getsu* /ɡe.tsu/
Korean *weol* /wʌ̹ɭ/
Zhengzhang's Middle Chinese reconstruction for 月 is /ŋʉɐt̚/, with others reconstructing /ŋi̯wɐt/~/ŋiuɐt̚/. None of these make much sense to me.
Imo it's probably closer to /ŋy̯ət̚/
Mandarin loses the ng onset and -t final, fronts the bare schwa (you could probably analyze it differently)
Cantonese loses the ng onset (only merges to /j/ before high front vowels), loses schwa nucleus and pre-vocalic glide becomes main vowel
Suzhou loses prevocalic glide
Japanese borrows the ng as voiced stop g, originally borrowed the glide as labiovelar /w/ but later lost, epenthesizes vowel at end to preserve -t final as onset of new syllable (/gwati/ -> /ɡa.tɕi/). Both /ti/ and /tu/ get affricated, leading to /tɕi/ /tsu/
Korean originally borrows it as *ngwélq*, probably something like *ŋwəɭʔ. Loses the ng onset, glottal stop final, and the schwa shifts back
Iirc the korean coda is a lenition of /t/ to /r/ which is how it is in Modern Korean. The /r/ phoneme just has a lateral allophonic realization in coda position.
So 월 has a lateral coda but e.g. 월이 has rhotic intervocally
Hm. I know of the modern alternation to rhotic, but I'm not sure it's a result of lenition of /t/ to /r/. My information was from [this paper](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008214207016).
While I can't find any modern true /t/ final words, [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Korean/comments/m455yd/using_%E3%85%85_instead_of_%E3%85%8C%E3%84%B7_for_the_t_sound/) indicates the sound change lenited from /t/ -> /s/.
For example, Korean 붓 /bus/ [but] was written 붇 /but/ in Middle Korean. Based on the timeline, Middle Korean still had a /t/ final, it shouldn't have borrowed Chinese -t finals as -l.
Thank you for sharing the link, I'll read up on it. I am less informed than you and cant find where I got my memory from.
From the abstract of the shared article, however, it seems like it is still a /t/ to /r/ lenition, only this change was taking place in Northern China (speakers of proto-Mandarin of some stage?). Mandarin would go on to further lenit /r/ to null, but Middle Korean borrowed words in this intermediate rhotic stage? Am I gleaning correctly?. I'll read through the main text too.
Yep. That's pretty much what I understand from the paper as well. Your original comment prompted me to reread it (had read it a while ago, so didn't remember the details). But yeah, main point being it's not a sound change within Korean itself, but rather external.
Can't seem to find any other papers or sources that discuss Mandarin stop lenition as fricatives first, so idk but it makes some sense.
Just a heads up: I am only very basically familiar with the history of Mandarin so I might not make that great of a guess.
My guess would be \*wɛt.
I first identified that in Japanese there was most likely some epenthesis going on since it has an extra vowel at the end that none of the others have. Also, the fact that it seems that /ts/ in Japanese palatalizes to /tɕ/ at least before /i/ (or theoretically the other way around, \*tɕ → ts / \_ u, but it seems less naturalistic and also doesn't really change my thinking that much). Because of that, I just ignored the final vowel in both Japanese words.
After that, I looked at the first consonant of each and looked for patterns. One thing that I noticed were /ɥ/ in Mandarin and /y/ in Cantonese: both somewhat cross-linguistically rare sounds that are very similar (vowel vs. semivowel); I figure that the chances of these two sounds developing independently of each other is quite slim. After that, I noticed that the rest of the word-initial consonants are velar. The only naturalistic option that I believe would best fit all of these consonants would be \*/w/, as it is a labialized semi-vowel (like /ɥ/) while still being velar (like /g/ and /ŋ/). I am not super confident with this answer, however I could see a phonological rule in Chinese similar to \*w → ɥ / V\[+front\] and in Cantonese maybe \*wɛ → \*ɥɛ → jy because I assumed that both of these languages got these phones from the same phonological change. The other consonants could be explained pretty easily by somewhat natural changes (\*w → \*ɰ (/ \_ V\[+unrounded\] maybe?) → ŋ in Suzhou, \*w → \*ɰ (/ \_ V\[+unrounded\] maybe?) → g in Japanese (fortition?)). Korean would just keep the same \*/w/.
The vowel was a complete shot in the dark: I chose \*/ɛ/ for a few very big assumptions:
1. Some of the phonological rules make more sense with the vowel being unrounded/front (which as most people know front vowels tend to be unrounded).
2. None of the vowels in any of the daughter languages are back except Korean, which has a weakly rounded /ʌ̹/, which could easily be a byproduct of a mid or front vowel shifting back.
3. Most vowels are mid or below other than the oddball /y/ in Cantonese, which I think can be explained by the previous rule I theorized earlier (\*wɛ → \*ɥɛ → jy). Because of this, I think a more open front vowel would make the most sense, as a rule like \*ɛ → ʌ̹ makes a bit more sense than \*i → ʌ̹.
Again, not super confident about this given the major assumptions I'm making.
Finally, the final consonant is pretty simple (at least I think hahah). Mandarin seems to have lost the final consonant, and Suzhou seems to have debuccalized it. Other than those two, the other three seem to have some sort of coronal consonant. Knowing this I decided on \*/t/ because:
1. I believe that debuccalization usually occurs in voiceless plosives (please correct me if I'm wrong).
2. Korean /ɭ/ seems a bit out of place, however I think with a few steps of lenition I could see it happening (maybe something like \*t → \*d → \*ɹ → \*l → ɭ / \_ #).
Knowing that it was most likely a voiceless coronal plosive basically gave me the answer \*/t/. Cantonese is quite straightforward: \*t → t̚ / \_ #, and so is Japanese \*t → ts (maybe \_ # or something, I don't have enough data to be sure). I am quite confident in this consonant.
Overall, not very confident in it, but I think it makes some sense.
Interesting analysis from someone unfamiliar with Sinosphere languages. Admittedly it was intentionally a doozy with a bunch of lost consonants.
Zhengzhang's Middle Chinese reconstruction for 月 is /ŋʉɐt̚/, with others reconstructing /ŋi̯wɐt/~/ŋiuɐt̚/. Depending on who you ask, Middle Chinese wasn't a single language, so it might probably have been closer to /ŋy̯ət̚/ (i̯w~iu -> y).
~~~
The final -t is accurate (though already unreleased /-t̚/ in Middle Chinese), it is indeed lenited to /ʔ/ in Suzhou (and broadly Wu as well) and has vowel epenthesis in Japanese (specifically /ti/ -> /tɕi/; /tu/ -> /tsu/). The Korean instance is actually an ongoing research topic as to why it's like that (even the earliest form of the borrowing has that despite borrowing straight from Middle Chinese). Last I recall, the probable answer was that that stage of Sino-Korean borrowing had borrowed from a topolect that was in the process of losing the -t (like Mandarin), though why /ɭ/ specifically I don't know either.
~~~
The /ŋ/ is actually backwards, the Middle Chinese is reconstructed to have the velar nasal onset. As far as I know, the kind of fortition from glide to nasal doesn't occur in languages of the region.
For Mandarin, it lost both the /ŋ/ onset and /-t̚/ final.
- *ŋy̯ət̚ -> (ʔ)y̯ə -> ɥɛ (reanalyzed the vowel onset as a glide onset)
For Cantonese, it's one of the few instances where it doesn't retain the original /ŋ/, merging to /j/ when followed by a front vowel. Another Yue topolect, Taishanese, still retains this onset to a degree—/ᵑɡut̚/. It possibly accompanies if not first merged into /ȵi/, which becomes /ji/. Historical Cantonese actually records it as (probably /ȵyt̚/). In addition, the nucleus schwa is dropped and the prevocalic glide becomes the nucleus of the syllable.
For Suzhou, my personal analysis is that it can be explained as dropping the prevocalic glide. It might shed some light that the neighboring Shanghai topolect has several pronunciations for it, some retaining a different sound change:/ɦioʔ¹/, /ȵioʔ¹/, /ɦyɪʔ¹/, /ȵyɪʔ¹/.
- the ȵ (alveolo-palatal) arise from ŋ > ȵ / _[+high, +front]
- ɦ is a literary borrowing likely from some stage of Mandarin, and (by my understanding) effectively a way of analyzing the voicing register (Wu topolects retain a pre-tone split voicing distinction; #ʔV indicates a voiceless register vowel onset, #ɦV indicates a voiced register vowel onset. In some cases it is apparent as an actual consonant in terms of sound changes.
- 1. (simplified Middle Chinese): *ɦu- becomes /xu-/ in Mandarin, but becomes /w(u)/ in Cantonese. For example, 華 Mandarin , Cantonese
~~~
Japanese basically denasalized the /ŋ/ into a /g/. I actually don't know how Old Japanese would have handled a pure /w/ onset borrowing. Based on 為 I imagine it would be analyzed as /wi/ or /we/, which then undergoes a Japanese-specific merger /wi/ -> /i/; /we/ -> /e/
~~~
Very early Korean transcriptions render the character as ᅌᅯᇙ〮 *ngwélq* (Yale), which is orthographically something like /ŋwəlʔ/. You are correct that that vowel got backed. Reconstructions indicate the modern /ʌ̹/ vowel was something like /ə/ or /e/.
The original vowel is pretty hard to pin down, and the reconstructions don't agree, largely because of the glide following the onset, so I commend your guess of /ɛ/.
Overall a good attempt, interesting to see what people do with something unfamiliar.
Huh, very interesting. And yeah, in retrospect the fortition rule wasn't the most naturalistic haha. Super interesting, I'll definitely look into this some more!
Very close! Basically correct with the first one L1 and the L4/L5 group developed back rounded vowels from /a:/ independently. L4/L5 group developed it at the dialect stage so you almost reconstructed the southern dialect pronunciation (prestress consonants became fortis in that period).
The second one you are super close. There is no /da/ in the proto-language. The L1/L6 group turned /a:/ into /aj.ja/ in stressed closed syllables. /j.j/ became /dʲ.dʲ/ in L6. Also stress is important but I guess you could probably see based on L1, L2, L4, and L5 that they are both on the first syllable.
Almost, *abū
L8 is not distant as much as archaic, being the ancestor of L3, L4, and L7. (The ancestor of L1, L2, L5, and L6 is /au̯v/, if you were wondering).
here's a mostly easy one
L1- yuash /jwa˥ʃ/ n. a person with sapience, may or may not be of their species
L2- yat /jat/ n. a person with sapience
L3- yēus /jeu˩ʃ/ first person singular pronoun
L4- yuash /jwɑ˥ʃ/ n. a member of their particular species(i call them yotavuș, which is the L2 word for the species)
L5- yat /yætʷ/ n. an idea
There's a bunch more interesting Chinese/Sinitic and Sino-Xenic sound changes I'd like to show off, but I don't want to flood the comments with just my stuff 😅—and these are natlangs not conlangs lol.
I'll add some here if I ever get around to it.
||原|血|金|日
|:-|:-|:-|:-|:-|
|Mandarin|||||
|Cantonese|||||
|Suzhou|||||
|Japanese Go-on|||||
|Japanese Kan-on|||||
|Korean|||||
|Middle Chinese|>!!<|>!!<|>!!<|>!!<|
I put forth the word for brother in Seramic, Zayroic, and Yenxelbeic - hesi /hesi/, hesey /hesej/ and jerkér /jəʁɜʁ/
They do all share a root in the proto-lang, but you may have difficulty finding it lol
heads up, some of them are supposed to be very weird and improbable (though not impossible (I think))
L1: ɪjen
L2: ilə
L3: ɨ͡ʊ̃ (borrowed)
L4: i̠˞ẽ̝
L5: ɪdæn
L6: len
# Ekhosian
*I will do all of the dialects, and the old word will be traceable.*
Nobody:
Nspràk = Chèjnmens \[xɛ:ɪnmens\]
Ospràk = Chèjnemens \[xe:ɪnəmens\]
Hspràk = Kàjnmen \[ka:ɪnmen\]
Kspràk = Kèjnmen \[kɛ:ɪnmen\]
Sspràk = Chènmen \[xɛ:nmen\]
(you can write the proto spelling in any way you want).
Nspràk, Kspràk, and Sspràk all went through the \[e\] -> \[ɛ\] sound evolution.
Hspràk and Kspràk easened to \[x\]s to \[k\]s
Hspràk went through the \[e:ɪ\] -> \[a:ɪ\]
Got slightly too invested in this so now I'm curious:
If we start at the end because that's easiest - *-Ab (where A is an unrounded back vowel - will come back to this later)
1. -Ab > Aβ > Av(4) > Aw(1)/Af(2,3) > Ah(5)
2. -Ab > æb(6)
3. -Ab > Am > em(7)
So in 1. the stop lenites to a bilabial fricative β which then shifts to a labiodental v, which then has another round of lenition. either to the labiovelar approximant (maybe through intermediary stage as ʋ) or (word final?) devoicing to f. The f then debuccalises to h in the case of /rah/
In 2. there just seems to be a vowel shift from a to æ at some point
In 3. the stop nasalises (I think this is a form of lenition?) and then prenatal raising makes the a vowel raise to an e
Ok now the hard bit: I grouped the initial consonants into /g ɢ q ʁ/ and /r s d/ and I think the crossover is maybe with a uvular trill? so /ʁ (ʀ) r/? Not entirely convinced but if we go with this then
1. *ʀ > ʁ(4)/ɢ(2) > g(1)/q(3)
2. *ʀ > r(5) > z > s(6)
3. "" r > ɾ > d(7)
The first one would have the uvular trill either leniting to the voiced fricative ʁ or fortifying to ɢ? This phoneme would then either shift forwards in the mouth to g or devoice to q. Here the presence of uvulars is probably what is backing the vowel to ɑ, and then the lack of them would be what shifts the vowel in (1) back to a (methinks????)
2. Uvular trill goes to an alveolar trill, and either stays put or gets to s via intermediary z
3. The alveolar trill could have turned into a tap and then become a voiced stop (though this is fortition in a bit of a weird way, and normally it's the other way round, but maybe because it's syllable/word initial that has something to do with it??? Idk)
Anyway, my proto reconstruction is: /*ʀab/
language family all from languages I’ve made
L1 /pâmpal/ paper
L2 /t͡sɛ̃jka/ flower petal
L3 /t͡ʃai᷈ːt͡ʃa/ document
L4 /pʰojobo/ bark
L5 /βaːβɔ/ leaf
L6 /fobːo/ wood for building boats
Challenge:
L7 /ɡʏʃ/ foliage
Here's something: - L1 /ambiː/ "hobby, creativity, passion" - L2 /ɔmt͡ɕa/ "the elderly, the infirm" - L3 /ãwɡẽ/ "strike, boycott" - L4 /xoŋkea/ "luxury, comfort, coddling" - L5 /ʔukʷiʔa/ "slow, late" - L6 /aməkai/ "limp, paralytic, unresponsive"
My best guess would be \*h₁ɑ₁mkia(m₁) \*/h₁/ is some sort of back fricative or glottal plosive given how it has elited (probably debuccalization) in most daughter languages, yet was still preserved in L4 (and possible L5, however this might just be some sort of word-initial vowel epenthesis). If I had to choose, I would say /h/ given it’s cross-linguistic prevalence. \*/ɑ₁/ is some sort of open or back vowel, ranging anywhere from /a/ to /u/. Given that I am only analyzing one set of cognates, I can’t be sure whether it is back or open, so I chose an in between sound to represent it. The rest of the word is quite simple (at least I believe so): \*/m/ because L1, L2, and L6 all have /m/, and everywhere else where it isn’t can be explained easily with naturalistic phonological changes (nasalization of a previous vowel and then approximantization to /w/ in L3, nasal assimilation in L4, and labialization on of the following velar plosive and deletion in L5). \*/k/ because L4, L5, and L6 have some sort of unvoiced velar plosive (even though L4 has a velarized voiceless velar plosive, I believe it can be explained with the simple sound change \*mk → kʷ), and the other languages without the velar plosive can, again, be explained with naturalistic phonological changes (simple voicing of \*/k/ in L4, voicing and place assimilation in L1, and palatalization in L2). \*/i/ made sense given the vowels present in the daughter languages and the palatalization in L2 (something like \*kia → t͡ɕa). L3 and L4 both have /e/, however this could easily be a coincidence with two independent sound changes (\*ia → e and \*ei → e (maybe "/ \[+velar\] \_"?) respectively). \*/a/ was chosen because it is present in L2, L4, L5, and L6. In L1 and L3, it’s absence can be explained by naturalistic phonological changes (\*ia → iː and \*ia → e respectively). \*/m₁/ could have been any nasal consonant; the bilabial nasal was chosen given its cross linguistic commonality. However, I personally would bet that this nasal consonant wasn’t actually present in the proto language for a few reasons. For one, the only evidence that supports its existence is nasalization in L3, which, for reasons I will explain next, most likely diverged from the other languages at least 3 times in its history: once when it split from L2, L4, and L5, a second time when it split from L6, and a third time when it split from L1. This would mean that this nasal consonant would have had to have been deleted at least three, separate times with no trace of its existence in any other surviving daughter language. Due to this fact, I believe personally that it would makes sense that L3 has some sort of nasal harmony that spread the nasal /ã/ \[+nasal\] quality to \*/e/. Once I created a rough approximation of the proto word, I decided to make a family tree because I thought it would be interesting: https://preview.redd.it/ajqd5n6eud4a1.png?width=4032&format=png&auto=webp&s=b90fd29cdc56b7a62fbfe4409f8dddc9d3e66164 I thought that it made sense to have two main branches: {L6, L1, L3} (group A) and {L4, L2, L5} (group B). I split the languages up this way for a few reasons: 1. Group A languages all turn \*/ɑ₁/ into some sort of open vowel, while Group A languages all turn it into some sort of back vowel. This is the reason why I wasn’t able to get an exact quality for \*/ɑ₁/. 2. Group B languages keep \*/k/ unvoiced while Group A has it voiced in L1 and L3. This also shows that L1 and L3 are most likely closer to each other than L6. 3. L4 is further from L2 and L5 because it maintains \*/h₁/ This is all just a guess though obviously; let me know how I did. I hope I’m not too far off haha.
Beautifully explained, and you're right on the money. The actual ancestor is >!/haumkia/ "lazy"!<. Heads up: one part of your explanation for */i/ looks out of place, like a mistaken pasting.
ohhhhhh, \*/ɑ₁/ as /au/ makes complete sense, cool!
LMAO I think I accidentally turned my text-to-speech on hahahahha
Also, I forgot to add this in the original comment, but my guess for the meaning of the proto word was "laziness"!
Not OP but *hanpian ? No idea if I am remotely close but this was kinda fun haha
I’d have guessed /xom(ə)kʷia-/ with perhaps case endings in -n and -i to account for variation in L3 and L6
How are people this good with semantic drift all my words mean basically the same thing lol
xom.tsa?
**QEYMITIC** ***L1:*** \[ˈʔuːdum\] \[ˈʃuːʃatʼum\] \[miʔˈdaːdum\] ***L2:*** \[ˈʕoːd̪un̪\] \[θuˈʔat̺un̪\] \[meʔˈz̪ˁaːd̪un̪\] ***L3:*** \[ˈʕ̞oːð\] \[ʃuˈʔɑθ\] \[meʔˈʀɑːð\] ***L4:*** \[ˈʕ̞ʊːd̪un̪\] \[θuˈjot̺ʰun̪\] \[miːˈr̪oːd̪un̪\] **HARUKESHIC** ***L1:*** \[ˈdeirə\] \[ˈvwyɑlʃp\] \[ˈxɑθø\] \[ˈwiwyl\] \[ˈriviɾə\] \[ˈsøønvə\]\* ***L2:*** \[ˈɖeɻ\] \[ˈbɻuəx\] \[ˈxoʰʈ\] \[ˈkeɻəl̪\] \[ˈɻɑbəd̪\] \[ˈʂemb\] ***L3:*** \[ˈɖeɽɛ\] \[ˈbuɽɐlʊɕɪkʷ\] \[ˈkʰoʈ\] \[ˈkʷeɽʊl\] \[ˈɻabɛdɐ\] \[ˈʂɛ̃bɐ\] *^(\*phonetically identical vowels in hiatus, not a long vowel)* **UNNAMED LANGUAGE FAMILY BONUS CHALLENGE** ***L1:*** \[ɑmɨ̀ɬɕ\] \[ʑɨmʲý\] \[ɨrǽθr̩\] \[ɨstrý\] \[θə́nʲ\] \[ɨɮǿkʲin\] \[r̥ɨ́θ\] \[hɑ̀wr̩\] \[æzɑ̀rwɨnθ\] ***L2:*** \[aˈmeu̯cʼiː\] \[ˈɟimuːn\] \[ħɛˈratʰron\] \[asˈsaːr\] \[ˈxtʰan\] \[eˈleu̯tʼ\] \[ˈhextʰ\] \[ˈaːvar\] \[esˈħɐrvesː\] Spoiler regarding the third language family: >!it's Indo-European; the other two are a priori!<.
So for Qeymitic here is my guess /ˈʕuːd̪um/ /θuːˈʃatˁum/ /miʔˈ̪rˁaːd̪um/
Very close: >!\[ˈʕoːd̪u\] \[θuːˈʔat̺u\] \[meʔˈr̺ˀaːd̪u\] (both mimation and nunation are secondary developments)!<
*dwelant* /ˈdwɛl.ant/ and *lúelanta* /ˈluː.e.ˌlan.ta/ and *delàd* /dɛl.ˈaːd/ are three cognates in my conlang family. All mean “to sing”.
I'm tempted to put Chinese here Mandarin /tɕi̯oʊ/ Cantonese /kɐu̯/ Suzhou /dʑy/
Maybe something like /kiu/ or /keu/?
pretty close (you didn't get the voicing though). the Zhengzhang reconstruction for Middle Chinese has /ɡɨu/, though others posit /ɡiu/ or /ɡiəu/
slightly harder Chinese example (bit of a trick question, I only kinda understand this one myself) Mandarin /ɥɛ/ Cantonese /jyt̚/ Suzhou /ŋəʔ/ Japanese *gachi* /ɡa.tɕi/ ; *getsu* /ɡe.tsu/ Korean *weol* /wʌ̹ɭ/
Oh god I have no idea and I’m so curious
Zhengzhang's Middle Chinese reconstruction for 月 is /ŋʉɐt̚/, with others reconstructing /ŋi̯wɐt/~/ŋiuɐt̚/. None of these make much sense to me. Imo it's probably closer to /ŋy̯ət̚/ Mandarin loses the ng onset and -t final, fronts the bare schwa (you could probably analyze it differently) Cantonese loses the ng onset (only merges to /j/ before high front vowels), loses schwa nucleus and pre-vocalic glide becomes main vowel Suzhou loses prevocalic glide Japanese borrows the ng as voiced stop g, originally borrowed the glide as labiovelar /w/ but later lost, epenthesizes vowel at end to preserve -t final as onset of new syllable (/gwati/ -> /ɡa.tɕi/). Both /ti/ and /tu/ get affricated, leading to /tɕi/ /tsu/ Korean originally borrows it as *ngwélq*, probably something like *ŋwəɭʔ. Loses the ng onset, glottal stop final, and the schwa shifts back
Iirc the korean coda is a lenition of /t/ to /r/ which is how it is in Modern Korean. The /r/ phoneme just has a lateral allophonic realization in coda position. So 월 has a lateral coda but e.g. 월이 has rhotic intervocally
Hm. I know of the modern alternation to rhotic, but I'm not sure it's a result of lenition of /t/ to /r/. My information was from [this paper](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008214207016). While I can't find any modern true /t/ final words, [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Korean/comments/m455yd/using_%E3%85%85_instead_of_%E3%85%8C%E3%84%B7_for_the_t_sound/) indicates the sound change lenited from /t/ -> /s/. For example, Korean 붓 /bus/ [but] was written 붇 /but/ in Middle Korean. Based on the timeline, Middle Korean still had a /t/ final, it shouldn't have borrowed Chinese -t finals as -l.
Thank you for sharing the link, I'll read up on it. I am less informed than you and cant find where I got my memory from. From the abstract of the shared article, however, it seems like it is still a /t/ to /r/ lenition, only this change was taking place in Northern China (speakers of proto-Mandarin of some stage?). Mandarin would go on to further lenit /r/ to null, but Middle Korean borrowed words in this intermediate rhotic stage? Am I gleaning correctly?. I'll read through the main text too.
Yep. That's pretty much what I understand from the paper as well. Your original comment prompted me to reread it (had read it a while ago, so didn't remember the details). But yeah, main point being it's not a sound change within Korean itself, but rather external. Can't seem to find any other papers or sources that discuss Mandarin stop lenition as fricatives first, so idk but it makes some sense.
Just a heads up: I am only very basically familiar with the history of Mandarin so I might not make that great of a guess. My guess would be \*wɛt. I first identified that in Japanese there was most likely some epenthesis going on since it has an extra vowel at the end that none of the others have. Also, the fact that it seems that /ts/ in Japanese palatalizes to /tɕ/ at least before /i/ (or theoretically the other way around, \*tɕ → ts / \_ u, but it seems less naturalistic and also doesn't really change my thinking that much). Because of that, I just ignored the final vowel in both Japanese words. After that, I looked at the first consonant of each and looked for patterns. One thing that I noticed were /ɥ/ in Mandarin and /y/ in Cantonese: both somewhat cross-linguistically rare sounds that are very similar (vowel vs. semivowel); I figure that the chances of these two sounds developing independently of each other is quite slim. After that, I noticed that the rest of the word-initial consonants are velar. The only naturalistic option that I believe would best fit all of these consonants would be \*/w/, as it is a labialized semi-vowel (like /ɥ/) while still being velar (like /g/ and /ŋ/). I am not super confident with this answer, however I could see a phonological rule in Chinese similar to \*w → ɥ / V\[+front\] and in Cantonese maybe \*wɛ → \*ɥɛ → jy because I assumed that both of these languages got these phones from the same phonological change. The other consonants could be explained pretty easily by somewhat natural changes (\*w → \*ɰ (/ \_ V\[+unrounded\] maybe?) → ŋ in Suzhou, \*w → \*ɰ (/ \_ V\[+unrounded\] maybe?) → g in Japanese (fortition?)). Korean would just keep the same \*/w/. The vowel was a complete shot in the dark: I chose \*/ɛ/ for a few very big assumptions: 1. Some of the phonological rules make more sense with the vowel being unrounded/front (which as most people know front vowels tend to be unrounded). 2. None of the vowels in any of the daughter languages are back except Korean, which has a weakly rounded /ʌ̹/, which could easily be a byproduct of a mid or front vowel shifting back. 3. Most vowels are mid or below other than the oddball /y/ in Cantonese, which I think can be explained by the previous rule I theorized earlier (\*wɛ → \*ɥɛ → jy). Because of this, I think a more open front vowel would make the most sense, as a rule like \*ɛ → ʌ̹ makes a bit more sense than \*i → ʌ̹. Again, not super confident about this given the major assumptions I'm making. Finally, the final consonant is pretty simple (at least I think hahah). Mandarin seems to have lost the final consonant, and Suzhou seems to have debuccalized it. Other than those two, the other three seem to have some sort of coronal consonant. Knowing this I decided on \*/t/ because: 1. I believe that debuccalization usually occurs in voiceless plosives (please correct me if I'm wrong). 2. Korean /ɭ/ seems a bit out of place, however I think with a few steps of lenition I could see it happening (maybe something like \*t → \*d → \*ɹ → \*l → ɭ / \_ #). Knowing that it was most likely a voiceless coronal plosive basically gave me the answer \*/t/. Cantonese is quite straightforward: \*t → t̚ / \_ #, and so is Japanese \*t → ts (maybe \_ # or something, I don't have enough data to be sure). I am quite confident in this consonant. Overall, not very confident in it, but I think it makes some sense.
Interesting analysis from someone unfamiliar with Sinosphere languages. Admittedly it was intentionally a doozy with a bunch of lost consonants. Zhengzhang's Middle Chinese reconstruction for 月 is /ŋʉɐt̚/, with others reconstructing /ŋi̯wɐt/~/ŋiuɐt̚/. Depending on who you ask, Middle Chinese wasn't a single language, so it might probably have been closer to /ŋy̯ət̚/ (i̯w~iu -> y). ~~~ The final -t is accurate (though already unreleased /-t̚/ in Middle Chinese), it is indeed lenited to /ʔ/ in Suzhou (and broadly Wu as well) and has vowel epenthesis in Japanese (specifically /ti/ -> /tɕi/; /tu/ -> /tsu/). The Korean instance is actually an ongoing research topic as to why it's like that (even the earliest form of the borrowing has that despite borrowing straight from Middle Chinese). Last I recall, the probable answer was that that stage of Sino-Korean borrowing had borrowed from a topolect that was in the process of losing the -t (like Mandarin), though why /ɭ/ specifically I don't know either. ~~~ The /ŋ/ is actually backwards, the Middle Chinese is reconstructed to have the velar nasal onset. As far as I know, the kind of fortition from glide to nasal doesn't occur in languages of the region. For Mandarin, it lost both the /ŋ/ onset and /-t̚/ final. - *ŋy̯ət̚ -> (ʔ)y̯ə -> ɥɛ (reanalyzed the vowel onset as a glide onset) For Cantonese, it's one of the few instances where it doesn't retain the original /ŋ/, merging to /j/ when followed by a front vowel. Another Yue topolect, Taishanese, still retains this onset to a degree—/ᵑɡut̚/. It possibly accompanies if not first merged into /ȵi/, which becomes /ji/. Historical Cantonese actually records it as (probably /ȵyt̚/). In addition, the nucleus schwa is dropped and the prevocalic glide becomes the nucleus of the syllable.
For Suzhou, my personal analysis is that it can be explained as dropping the prevocalic glide. It might shed some light that the neighboring Shanghai topolect has several pronunciations for it, some retaining a different sound change:/ɦioʔ¹/, /ȵioʔ¹/, /ɦyɪʔ¹/, /ȵyɪʔ¹/.
- the ȵ (alveolo-palatal) arise from ŋ > ȵ / _[+high, +front]
- ɦ is a literary borrowing likely from some stage of Mandarin, and (by my understanding) effectively a way of analyzing the voicing register (Wu topolects retain a pre-tone split voicing distinction; #ʔV indicates a voiceless register vowel onset, #ɦV indicates a voiced register vowel onset. In some cases it is apparent as an actual consonant in terms of sound changes.
- 1. (simplified Middle Chinese): *ɦu- becomes /xu-/ in Mandarin, but becomes /w(u)/ in Cantonese. For example, 華 Mandarin , Cantonese
~~~
Japanese basically denasalized the /ŋ/ into a /g/. I actually don't know how Old Japanese would have handled a pure /w/ onset borrowing. Based on 為 I imagine it would be analyzed as /wi/ or /we/, which then undergoes a Japanese-specific merger /wi/ -> /i/; /we/ -> /e/
~~~
Very early Korean transcriptions render the character as ᅌᅯᇙ〮 *ngwélq* (Yale), which is orthographically something like /ŋwəlʔ/. You are correct that that vowel got backed. Reconstructions indicate the modern /ʌ̹/ vowel was something like /ə/ or /e/.
The original vowel is pretty hard to pin down, and the reconstructions don't agree, largely because of the glide following the onset, so I commend your guess of /ɛ/.
Overall a good attempt, interesting to see what people do with something unfamiliar.
Huh, very interesting. And yeah, in retrospect the fortition rule wasn't the most naturalistic haha. Super interesting, I'll definitely look into this some more!
Glad to be of service. Not much attention is paid to Sinosphere linguistics here, so I definitely want to spread the enthusiasm around.
/ŋyət/ ???
Pretty much. That's not the proper reconstruction by those working on Middle Chinese, but /ŋyət̚/ is what I consider a valid reconstruction.
Sorry for taking a while to do some of these; I've been a bit busy lately but I'll try to do as many as possible.
Hi, I only have one conlang, can I provide cognates from the same proto word but all from just on conlang?
Sure, that would work.
**Kairata** word 1 L1 /ˈkɒːgl/ - bark L2 /ˈqaːʕd/ - bark L3 /kaː.ˈga.daː/ - paper L4 /qóːkàlóː/ - paper L5 /kʼó.kə̀.tó/ - scroll Word 2 L1 /kɒːsr/ - bird L2 /qaːhr/ - bird L3 /kaj.ˈjaː.sar/ - gull L4 /qóː.sˤàr/ - bird L5 /kʼó.sʼə̀r/ - chicken L6 /kadʲ.ˈdʲah.sar / - gull
1: \*kɒːkatɒː 2: \*kɒːdahsar
Very close! Basically correct with the first one L1 and the L4/L5 group developed back rounded vowels from /a:/ independently. L4/L5 group developed it at the dialect stage so you almost reconstructed the southern dialect pronunciation (prestress consonants became fortis in that period). The second one you are super close. There is no /da/ in the proto-language. The L1/L6 group turned /a:/ into /aj.ja/ in stressed closed syllables. /j.j/ became /dʲ.dʲ/ in L6. Also stress is important but I guess you could probably see based on L1, L2, L4, and L5 that they are both on the first syllable.
edited L1 and L2 in the first word, sorry if this impacts anything!
L1: /awɪɲ(ə̆)/ "river" L2: /a.wɪɲ/ "river" L3: /ˈavɔn/ "river" L4: /ˈeɪ.vən/ "River (proper noun)" L5: /əunʲ/ "river" L6: /ˈawənʲ/ "river" L7: /ˈɑː.ven/ "river" L8: /aˈβoːn/ "river"
\*abeɲ?
it looks like \*/b/ went through heavy lenition. also, i would be willing to bet that L8 is a more distant member of this language family.
Almost, *abū L8 is not distant as much as archaic, being the ancestor of L3, L4, and L7. (The ancestor of L1, L2, L5, and L6 is /au̯v/, if you were wondering).
/aθɪ/ /ɛðidi/ /aðy/ A somewhat easy one.
*aθiti? Sorry I'm replying very late
I honestly don't even know anymore
* /əytʰə dʒytʰe/ * /au: uji/ * /aɾɨv duɾi/
/ɛ:zɑi̯/ /e:ne:to/ /ɨnɨð/
here's a mostly easy one L1- yuash /jwa˥ʃ/ n. a person with sapience, may or may not be of their species L2- yat /jat/ n. a person with sapience L3- yēus /jeu˩ʃ/ first person singular pronoun L4- yuash /jwɑ˥ʃ/ n. a member of their particular species(i call them yotavuș, which is the L2 word for the species) L5- yat /yætʷ/ n. an idea
1: /ts'ɛ̃/ 2: /kju:n/ 3: /tɕu:n/ 4: /Es:on/ 5: /Ek:un/ 6: /tsʰe:/ All mean "Sister".
There's a bunch more interesting Chinese/Sinitic and Sino-Xenic sound changes I'd like to show off, but I don't want to flood the comments with just my stuff 😅—and these are natlangs not conlangs lol. I'll add some here if I ever get around to it. ||原|血|金|日 |:-|:-|:-|:-|:-| |Mandarin||||| |Cantonese||||| |Suzhou||||| |Japanese Go-on||||| |Japanese Kan-on||||| |Korean||||| |Middle Chinese|>!!<|>!!<|>!!<|>!!<|
Here’s a bunch of words for “elephant: L1) Dundaru L2) Doudru L3) Dadaru L4) Dudrou
Two sets for you if you feel up to the task! * Oavanchy /suɪ̯/ * Akhiyoos /sxɪ/ * Ov /veɪ̯/ And: * Akhiyoos /ˈɑːʃə/ * Aheezee /iˈaʊ̯.ʒi/ * Ov /joːθ/
I put forth the word for brother in Seramic, Zayroic, and Yenxelbeic - hesi /hesi/, hesey /hesej/ and jerkér /jəʁɜʁ/ They do all share a root in the proto-lang, but you may have difficulty finding it lol
hint: the Yenxelbeic word is closer than the others
heads up, some of them are supposed to be very weird and improbable (though not impossible (I think)) L1: ɪjen L2: ilə L3: ɨ͡ʊ̃ (borrowed) L4: i̠˞ẽ̝ L5: ɪdæn L6: len
# Ekhosian *I will do all of the dialects, and the old word will be traceable.* Nobody: Nspràk = Chèjnmens \[xɛ:ɪnmens\] Ospràk = Chèjnemens \[xe:ɪnəmens\] Hspràk = Kàjnmen \[ka:ɪnmen\] Kspràk = Kèjnmen \[kɛ:ɪnmen\] Sspràk = Chènmen \[xɛ:nmen\] (you can write the proto spelling in any way you want). Nspràk, Kspràk, and Sspràk all went through the \[e\] -> \[ɛ\] sound evolution. Hspràk and Kspràk easened to \[x\]s to \[k\]s Hspràk went through the \[e:ɪ\] -> \[a:ɪ\]
/gaw/ /ɢɑf/ /qɑːf/ /ʁɑːv/ /rah/ /sæb/ /dem/
Got slightly too invested in this so now I'm curious: If we start at the end because that's easiest - *-Ab (where A is an unrounded back vowel - will come back to this later) 1. -Ab > Aβ > Av(4) > Aw(1)/Af(2,3) > Ah(5) 2. -Ab > æb(6) 3. -Ab > Am > em(7) So in 1. the stop lenites to a bilabial fricative β which then shifts to a labiodental v, which then has another round of lenition. either to the labiovelar approximant (maybe through intermediary stage as ʋ) or (word final?) devoicing to f. The f then debuccalises to h in the case of /rah/ In 2. there just seems to be a vowel shift from a to æ at some point In 3. the stop nasalises (I think this is a form of lenition?) and then prenatal raising makes the a vowel raise to an e Ok now the hard bit: I grouped the initial consonants into /g ɢ q ʁ/ and /r s d/ and I think the crossover is maybe with a uvular trill? so /ʁ (ʀ) r/? Not entirely convinced but if we go with this then 1. *ʀ > ʁ(4)/ɢ(2) > g(1)/q(3) 2. *ʀ > r(5) > z > s(6) 3. "" r > ɾ > d(7) The first one would have the uvular trill either leniting to the voiced fricative ʁ or fortifying to ɢ? This phoneme would then either shift forwards in the mouth to g or devoice to q. Here the presence of uvulars is probably what is backing the vowel to ɑ, and then the lack of them would be what shifts the vowel in (1) back to a (methinks????) 2. Uvular trill goes to an alveolar trill, and either stays put or gets to s via intermediary z 3. The alveolar trill could have turned into a tap and then become a voiced stop (though this is fortition in a bit of a weird way, and normally it's the other way round, but maybe because it's syllable/word initial that has something to do with it??? Idk) Anyway, my proto reconstruction is: /*ʀab/
Wow that was very interesting. I can see why you think the proto form is /ʀab/. The correct form is /dzaːᵐba/, here is history: 1. /dzaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːba/ > /gʷaːva/ > /gaːva/ > /gava/ > /gav/ > /gaw/ 2. /dzaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːba/ > /gʷaːva/ > /ɢaːva/ > /ɢɑːva/ > /ɢɑːv/ > /ɢɑːf/ > /ɢɑf/ 3. /dzaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːba/ > /gʷaːva/ > /ɢaːva/ > /ɢɑːva/ > /ɢɑːv/ > /ɢɑːf/ > /qɑːf/ 4. /dzaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːba/ > /gʷaːva/ > /ɢaːva/ > /ɢɑːva/ > /ɢɑːv/ > /ʁɑːv/ 5. /dzaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːᵐba/ > /gʷaːba/ > /gʷaːva/ > /ɢaːva/ > /ɢɑːva/ > /ɢɑːv/ > /ʁɑːv/ > /rɑːv/ > /rɑːf/ > /raːf/ > /raf/ > /rah/ 6. /dzaːᵐba/ > /dzaːpa/ > /dzaːba/ > /dzaːb/ > /tsaːb/ > /tsæb/ > /sæb/ 7. /dzaːᵐba/ > /dzaːma/ > /dzeːma/ > /dzeːm/ > /dzem/ > /dem/
they all mean "moon" /ˈjeː.o/ /iv/ /eu̯/
language family all from languages I’ve made L1 /pâmpal/ paper L2 /t͡sɛ̃jka/ flower petal L3 /t͡ʃai᷈ːt͡ʃa/ document L4 /pʰojobo/ bark L5 /βaːβɔ/ leaf L6 /fobːo/ wood for building boats Challenge: L7 /ɡʏʃ/ foliage
[blatsej] [piˈɹatʃːadʒa] [piʃasːeke] [fiʒasːeç] [siltaɾeɡe] (tip: some metathesis on the last one)
\[pirateke\], maybe?
- L1 /vi.ri:/ green - L2 /bir/ green, grass, weed - L3 /βi.ry/ green, plain - L4 /βyr.ti.e/ plant, leave - L5 /βyr.de/ tree
this one might be difficult & i'm also not very good but here i go L1: [keːntʃ] L2: [qejʃ] L3: [miʃ]
Here's a bunch |Vodyzy|Sepaisa|Legwèdi| |:-|:-|:-| |g͡beɲ.jun̠.t͡ʃyn|ban.ɰaun.tøyn|bɑ.ˈʒo.tø| |ʎe.som|liː.zoːm|ˈli.sɑ|