everyone: When is the Edinburgh Symposium on Historical Phonology coming back? us: in December! The call for papers is now out, with an abstract deadline of 15th July! lel.ed.ac.uk/symposium-on-h…

Ollie Sayeed For anyone reading this tweet, our call for papers is open until the 15th of July. Come to Edinburgh in December to discuss! lel.ed.ac.uk/symposium-on-h…

Historical phonologists! Don't forget that the deadline for abstracts for the Fourth Edinburgh Symposium on Historical Phonology #ESHP4 is on 15 July. Less than a week to go! Conference is on 9th and 10th December 2019. lel.ed.ac.uk/symposium-on-h… … Papers in Historical Phonology

Cser: actually deletion could only apply to /sm sn sl/ and also /sd/ internally. Note that three of the four consonants affected are coronal. #eshp3

Cser: note also final /s/-loss in V_#C contest. Documented in 3rd century BC, prob as variable tendency, but restored by 1st century BC as commented on by Cicero #eshp3

Cser: final /s/ loss must have masked lots of context for pre-voiced /s/ deletion #eshp3

Cser: glides are also special as s+glide sequences rare except s#w, #sw. So [w] was the only voiced consonant to have a contrast between categorically non-deleting sC and potentially deleting s#C #eshp3

Cser: in fact, this means that the status of glides as triggers of /s/ loss would have been ambiguous for learners #eshp3

Cser: among voiced consonant, coronals are more than twice as frequent as non-coronals; among voiceless consonants, the reverse #eshp3

Cser: three indeterminacies regarding the status of /s/ deletion before voiced C: is it phrase level or word level (because of final /s/ loss)? Is it triggered by voiced coronals or all coronals? Is it triggered by glides? #eshp3

Cser: first indeterminacy gives domain narrowing. The others show up in the different treatment of prefixes and prepositions #eshp3

Cser conclusion: voiced /s/ loss started as a phonetic process, but disributional asymmetries and gaps, and the interference from final /s/ loss, led to three different paths to phonologization #eshp3

Nick Zair: how reliable is the evidence for the treatment of prefixes? Is it not an artefact of dictionaries? AC: it seems fairly unproblematic until you go to Late Latin. Scribal interference wouldn't have been so phonologically consistent #eshp3

Honeybone: is it /s/ loss or /s/ > /z/ > zero? AC: the latter. PH: nothing between /z/ and zero? AC: wouldn't speculate #eshp3

RBO: could we go further and predict the behaviour of individual prefixes from e.g. productivity/compositionality? AC: probably, and with other prefixes too #eshp3

That's your tweeter signing off prematurely. Have a fabulous rest of the conference! #eshp3

Marjoleine Sloos on the BÄREN~BEEREN contrast, with merger/unmerger fluctuating over the centuries! Now differs between Northern Standard German, Swiss Standard German (merger), and Austrian Standard German (split). #eshp3

.The Fruehwald: "In thinking about the regularity of phonological grammars, it's important to [ask] where does the regularity of phonological change come from?" Proposal A: The individual. Proposal B: The community. What are the predictions of each? #eshp3

.The Fruehwald Previous accounts of /ay/-raising and phonological conditioning focused on the individual, not the community. This is complicated by data on incipient, purely phonetic raising from Fort Wayne (Berkson, Davis, & Strickler 2017) muse.jhu.edu/article/669560… #eshp3

.The Fruehwald reviews other cases of a "coherent community, [but] incoherent individuals" to say that we should think about what we study as "artifacts of the speech community" and "created by the community, rather than [patterns of] the individual that we then average over." #eshp3