Papers in Historical Phonology 2018-09-21T14:13:09+01:00 Patrick Honeybone Open Journal Systems <p>Papers in Historical Phonology (‘PiHPh’) aims to provide a high-profile, speedy, permanent and fully open-access place for the publication of interesting ideas from any area of Historical Phonology. PiHPh is online only and there is no charge of any kind to publish in it. There is one volume of PiHPh per year, and papers are added to it as soon as they are cleared for publication.</p> Aspiration in Basque 2018-02-23T04:26:37+00:00 José Ignacio Hualde <p>The distribution of aspiration in Basque — with ‘aspiration’ referring to both the occurrence of [h] and of aspirated stops — shows some puzzling aspects. In some words, aspiration is ancient, in the sense that it must be assumed for the earliest reconstructable stage. In some other instances, however, it has arisen seemingly <em>ex nihilo</em>, as can be observed in borrowings from Latin and Romance, e.g. Latin/Romance <em>īra</em> &gt; Basque <em>hira</em> ‘ire’, Romance <em>taula</em> &gt; Basque <em>thaula</em> ‘board’. Most surprisingly, in some words aspiration has developed after a sonorant consonant, e.g. Romance <em>solatz</em> &gt; Basque <em>solhas</em> ‘conversation’. Aspiration may also continue intervocalic /n/, e.g. Latin <em>anāte</em> &gt; Basque <em>ahate</em> ‘duck’. Another unusual development is the phonologization of the contrast between aspirated and unaspirated voiceless stops triggered by a shift of the stress in some words without affecting the properties of consonants. Finally, an interdialectal alternation /k-/ ~ /g-/ ~ /h-/ ~ Ø in demonstratives and related adverbs appears to have involved fortition, contrary to initial expectations. Here we describe the environments in which aspiration is found in Basque and discuss the most likely historical developments that could have given rise to the state of affairs that we find, paying particular attention to what would appear to be unusual or unnatural sound changes. We build on prior scholarship, but this paper also contains some new hypotheses, especially regarding the aspiration in words like <em>ahate</em> ‘duck’.&nbsp; We have also tried to contribute to the dating of the different processes and to the understanding of in their causes.</p> 2018-02-23T04:22:26+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## Gradient dissimilation in Mongolian: implications for diachrony 2018-09-06T13:02:11+01:00 Adèle Jatteau Michaela Hejná <p>This paper explores the implications of 'gradient dissimilation' (Jatteau &amp; Hejná 2016) for the diachronic implementation of long-distance dissimilation (e.g. C<sup>h</sup>VC<sup>h</sup> &gt; CVC<sup>h</sup>). Since dissimilation is usually considered as lexically sporadic, cases where it applies regularly throughout the lexicon should result from lexical diffusion. Against this assumption, we explore the hypothesis that gradient dissimilation may represent the phonetic precursor of completed, regular dissimilatory processes. Such cases might then be reanalysed as Neogrammarian types of change. To assess this question, we gather and analyse new data from Halh Mongolian, a language reported to show gradient dissimilation of the aspiration feature, and compare it to two completed patterns of aspiration dissimilation reconstructed within the Mongolic family: Chahar Mongolian and Monguor. The results suggest that the gradient dissimilation in Halh may represent the phonetic precursor of Chahar, but also that gradient dissimilation may be bidirectional for some speakers. An interesting difference between our Halh Mongolian results and the other patterns of the Mongolic family resides in the behaviour of /s/, which in our data does not pattern as expected with the aspirated stops.</p> 2018-09-06T13:02:11+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## The phonetics of NCh in Tumbuka and its implications for diachronic change 2018-09-17T01:36:32+01:00 Laura J. Downing Silke Hamann <p class="Abstract">The phonetic motivation for the synchronic and diachronic development of post-nasal voicing (*NT &gt; ND) is well understood. Less well understood is the phonetic motivation for other common synchronic and diachronic developments from *NT, widely attested in Bantu languages, such as aspiration of the voiceless plosive and subsequent loss of either the nasal or the plosive portion of the sequence: *NT &gt; NTh &gt; Th, Nh. In this paper we first review the existing (scarce) phonetic literature on these developments. Then we present the results of a phonetic study of NC sequences in Tumbuka, a Bantu language where NT &gt; NTh, as a way of exploring how the acoustic and perceptual properties of NTh sequences could motivate the development, found in other Bantu languages, of Th or Nɦ from NTh. We conclude by proposing that a perceptual cue approach, rather than a gestural or other articulatory approach, provides the most persuasive phonetic account, not only of the motivation for post-nasal aspiration of voiceless stops, but also for the instability of nasals and of voiceless stops in the NTh context which leads to other sound changes.</p> 2018-09-17T00:00:00+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## The Anatolian Dissimilation Rule Revisited 2018-09-21T14:13:09+01:00 Paul S. Cohen Adam Hyllested <p>The <em>Anatolian Dissimilation Rule</em> (<em>ADR</em>) was first introduced in an oral presentation by us in 2006 and first published by us in 2012, though it had, in several fundamental aspects, been prefigured in articles by, e.g., Gillian Hart and Birgit Olsen. The <em>ADR</em> expresses the following sound change(s): Proto-Indo-European *<em>h<sub>3</sub></em> &gt; {Hittite <em>š</em>; Luvian <em>t/d</em>; Lycian, Milyan <em>t</em>; Lydian <em>s</em>} / <em>##</em> __ X Labiovelar Y, where X and Y are arbitrary (possibly null) phone strings and X does not contain <em>#</em>. There are five PIE roots/words with attested reflexes in Anatolian that are subject to the <em>ADR</em>, and all of them exhibit the appropriate outcomes: *<em>h<sub>3</sub>ok<sup>w</sup>-</em> ‘eye’, *<em>h<sub>3</sub>ēh<sub>2</sub>u̯r̥ ‘</em>urine’, *<em>h<sub>3</sub>n̥g<sup>wh</sup>-</em> ‘fingernail, toenail’, *<em>h<sub>3</sub>óng<sup>w</sup>n̥</em> ‘fat, butter, oil, salve’, *<em>h<sub>3</sub></em>(<em>o</em>)<em>rh<sub>2</sub></em><em>u̯</em><em>ent-</em> ‘innards, intestine(s)’. The <em>ADR</em> covers all relevant items exceptionlessly; nevertheless, it has not been widely accepted. Potential reasons—both Anatolian-specific and more generally phonological—will be discussed and rebutted below, in the light of our previous arguments/suggestions and some newly added and upgraded ones.</p> 2018-09-21T14:13:08+01:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement##