Spoiler:
Many thanks again for your patience and continued interest in playing. I've tried to be pretty forthcoming with information here, but please feel free to ask for clarification on anything if needed.
I'm afraid that you're still off in terms of syllable structure and the number of syllables. Your previous reconstruction of the initial consonant, [ʝ-], was closer to what I had in mind, [j-]. There are no syllabic consonants, but there is an [-r-]. Also, there's a segment missing between [-o-] and the first instance of [-i-]. Overall, ignoring stress marking, [jo-i-n-r-w-] is correct.
If you mean that the nucleus of the initial syllable is [-i-], I'm afraid that's not correct. What I have in mind is [CVi̯-]. You're right about the nasalization, though.
It was not rounded, and the [əi̯-] in N is not due to the influence of the original initial consonant.
I'm afraid it's more like an unintentional red herring. The [h-] in C is epenthetic, a later development following the loss of the original initial consonant.
I'm afraid that's pretty far off from what I have in mind for Proto-NW/N/NE/W/C. Regarding NE, if you mean "length" as in the number of syllables (the overall length of the word), I'll say that this language is actually conservative in that regard.
I have [-oə̯] > [-waː]. You're right about the [-l-] being an innovation, although it doesn't come from an earlier [-d-]. [-ʊ-] is not epenthetic.
There was no vowel breaking in W, although there was one instance in N. As for [-d-] > [-r-], it's actually the reverse.
I'm afraid that there was no vowel breaking in E. The voiceless palatal nasal is related to the medial voiceless obstruents in SW, S, and SE.
Unfortunately, these are still very far off.
You're right about the vowel harmony in SW.
I have [j-] > [ɟ-] > [d-] for the initial consonant, but I'd say you're close enough there. [-ø-] does not come from [-oi̯-], but they are related. I have [-ç-] instead of [-s-] on my end, so I'll say that [-øç-] in one branch corresponds to [-oi̯-] in the other, both descending from earlier [-oCi-]. Here, [-o-] was fronted by the adjacent palatal consonants. Unfortunately, the [-t-] in S is unrelated to the [-r-] in NW, W, and SW. However, no affixation or anything like that is involved. Although [-oː] > [-u] isn't really accurate, an earlier [-u] was fronted to [-y] in SW due to vowel harmony.Arayaz wrote: ↑01 Sep 2023 00:15 SW d- is from *gʲ > *dʒ > d. The ø is from *oi, in one of many possible ways. The s is weird, and I don't know what it might come from. The *t definitely became the r, unless affixation is involved. The y is from *o: > *u and getting fronted by the harmony. The œ: is also inexplicable, at least for now.
I have [j-] > [ɟ-] > [ʑ-] > [z-], but I'd say you're close enough again. The diphthong [-oi̯-] did not develop in this branch, though you're right about [-o-] > [-ɔ-].
Hopefully some of what I've said above will be helpful when it comes to making adjustments here.
[-b-] in S corresponds to [-f] in SE.
Oh, yay!
You're right about how [-r-] changes in those languages. While it's not exactly accurate to say that NW [-ru] comes from an earlier [-rwi], you're right about the segments [-r-w-] and the final front vowel, and there is indeed a correspondence between NW [-ru], N [-ˈdʉu̯], NE [-ʊˈlwaː], W [-ˈroə̯], C [-doː], E [-ɔu̯], SW [-œːry], S [-r̩bi], and SE [-ɛːf].
This may be the closest you've gotten so far!
Epenthesis was not involved here. Vowel harmony was involved, I'd say, but the relevant feature was backness, not rounding.
Yes!
I have [j-] > [ɟ-] > [ʑ-] for SE. [-t͡ɕ-] does indeed correspond to [-st-] in S. I'm afraid you're really far off-base with regards to [-ɛː-]. There was no affixation of any kind in any of the nine languages.Arayaz wrote: ↑01 Sep 2023 00:15 SE ʑ is obviously from *gʲ. The tɕ is strange, probably related to the -st- in S. ɛ: is *wi > *oi > *e: > ɛ:, with some sort of -ATR in unstressed syllables. The -f I can't explain. Probably an affix. But, I'll say there was a *f at the end, which was lost in most cases but remained in SE.
There was a voiceless obstruent before the [-n-], but not immediately adjacent to it, and not [-s-].
![[<3]](./images/smilies/heartic.png "<3"){kind=small}
Papuan languages, Morphophonology, Lexical Semantics ![[:S]](./images/smilies/icon_confused2.png ":S"){kind=icon}
Of course, that's not to say that ɶʙ ɞʛ hasn't done very well. ![[:)]](./images/smilies/icon_smile2.png ":)"){kind=icon}
