$From Mildred Katherine Popeˌs 1934 "From Latin to Modern French"
$We follow exactly the order as stipulated in Chapter II starting on page 72, with some input from other chapters where appropriate
$However, she explains in her elaboration chapters some places where clearly the order is not what it is listed as in Chapter 4,
$ ... so we implement those instead
$ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

$Characteristics of Classical Latin as per Pope page 75
n̪ > ŋ / __ [+hi,+back,-cont]
ɡ > ŋ / __ [+nas,+cor]

l l > lʲ lʲ / [+hi,+front] __ [+hi,+front] 
l > [+hi,+front] / [+hi,+front] __ [+hi,+front] $ Pope says this one is "probable"
l > [+back] / @ __ $per page 75 s158, Pope specifically says is dark "every where else" giving examples of nolo and plenum
	$ she explicates that dark l existed continuously from Latin to French in various places: 
		$ s160-161 : references dark l existing, without this rule would be impossible
		$ s109b: dark L "in use in Latin and Period I of French"
		$ and for lʲ she similarly says it "survived into Old French after /i/" 
	$ these both cause obvious problems -- but what her stance (incorrectly) is seems clear

[+lo] > [-front,+back]
[+lo] > [+front,-back] / __ e̯

{j;w} > [+cons,-son] / __ [+syl] $as per Pope s106 -- Pope considers w and j when not "vocalic" (i.e. part of diphthong) to be fricative
	$ for j, p55 s105c ; for w, p56 s109
$ Note that the sequence u: + w does not seem to occur in Latin 
$ If it did there would be some logical issues with Popeˌs rules -- i.e. s343 she states "beta from b" is effaced after u: 
	$ where of course w (by which she means gamma^w) had already shifted to beta s186 much earlier 
	$ -- of course sound change has no memory! However this issue is moot because u:+w doesnˌt occur in Latin it seems

$Pope p226 s629
$In the second century, all aspiration on Greek loanwords was lost. 
[+sg,-cont] > [-sg]

$Pope p226-7 s632
$ Greek y unrounded to i 
[+hi,+front] > [-round,-lab]

$As per Pope's paradigm, it is considered Late Latin if it occurred before the end of the fifth century
$ we place the marker later as per the FLLAPS table. 

$p144 s359 ~ p73 s156iii --- ns > s, with compensatory lengthening of prior vowel -- must have occurred before nature of length changed
$Pope says "very early" s359
$Of course later authors would very likely consider this to be part of a nasalization phenomenon.
[+syl] > [+long] / __ n̪ s
n̪ > ∅ / __ s

$p144 s359 ~ p73 s156iii --- rs > s after long vowels, > ss after short vowels
	$must have occurred before nature of length changed
	$ implicitly consecutive vowels are "long" and second becomes so if not -- case of deorsum
[+cor,+son,-nas,-lat] > ∅ / [+syl,+long] __ s
[+cor,+son,-nas,-lat] > ∅ / [+syl] [+syl] __ s
[+cor,+son,-nas,-lat] > s / [+syl,-long] __ s

$Page 72-73, section 154i ~ elaborated p 89 s 179 
$Classical Latin length distinction becomes a quality ("tense" for us) distinction
[+syl,-lo,-long] > [-tense]

$p73 s155i ~ p91 s185 -- h-loss word-internally Pope explains that this happened word-internally first "very early", word initially later 
h > ∅ / @ __

$p145 s361- i-epenthesis -- happens in Western Romance very early, attested second century
∅ > ˌɪ / # __ s [+cons] 

$p100 s214i -- one case of regular stress movement, attested in third and fourth centuries . 
$ movement of stress onto the penultimate if antepenultimate is immediate adjacent short vowel
$ Must come before yod formation (s220), which it feeds, as per s214i -- not attested till the 3rd century but Pope seems to be saying it actually occurred earlier. 
[+syl,-lo,-hi,-stres] > [+prim] / [+prim,-lo,+front,-long] __ ([-syl])* [+syl] ([-syl])* #
[+prim] > [-prim] / # ([-syl])* __ [+prim]
[+prim] > [-stres] /  __ [+prim]

$p100 s214ii -- the (only?) other case of regular stress movement-- occurred around the same time but not for the educated classes
$stress on antepenultimate moves forward ("ordinarily") if hte second consists of short vowel + plosive + r
[-stres] > [+prim] / [+prim] ([-syl])* __ [-cont] r ([-syl])* [+syl] ([-syl])* #
[+prim] > [-prim] / # ([-syl])* __ ([-syl])* [+prim]
[+prim] > [-stres] / __ ([-syl])* [+prim]

$p73 s155iib and p91 s187 -- we know develarization of w came very early, 1st/2nd century (Reign of "Nerβa") and that it was preceded by 
$ the gliding phenomenon below

$p102 s220 (also p73 s156i)  -- yod and w formation -- gliding of unstressed short non-low vowels before other vowels
$ -- called upon to be this early by p91 s187
[+syl,-long,-stres,-lo] > [+hi,-syl,+tense] / __ [+syl]

$ per s220 : yod is lost between e and p,r
j > ∅ / {p;r} __ [+front,-hi,-lo,+syl]

j > ʝ / __ [+syl] $as per Pope s105c, 106
$ w, newly from u,o in hiatus is clearly NOT effected by this as per treatment in s374

$p91 s187iic -- explicitly must come after p102 s220 
$effacement of w before jod. 
$NOTE however that in many nouns this was reversed by analogy (see p92 s188)
$affects w as per laqueum > latz > "lacs"
{ɣʷ;w} > {∅;∅} / __ ʝ

$p91 s187iia
ɣʷ > ∅ / [+syl] __ [+syl,+round,+back]

$ as per s186iib -- w effaced between k and a rounded vowel
	$ Note most authors interpret this differently, as the delabialization of k
	$ Note also that Pope seems to have missed that his also happend after g?
w > ∅ / k __ [+syl,+round] 

$ p115 s261-264 ~ s221 ~ s156i
$ *** Note as per s156i, for Pope this is a "tendency" 
$ the slurring ... of "proparoxytones" ... i.e. where the tonic syllable was followed by two unstressed sylls before hte word coda
$ ... typically concerning those which are common suffixes here.
$ Pope attests this with the Appendix Probi, which was written in the third or fourth centuries but does not say that is when it specifically occurred. 
$ Because of words like "table", we know it probably occurred before lenition of intervocalic b (early second century) but Pope does not confirm this either. 
$ By placing it here before the beginning of betacism, we are giving Pope the benefit of the doubt. 
$ This is also inline with what she states about the -itus,-itum etc group -- she is holding that this phenomenon occurred before hte beginnings
$ 	of palatalization  (s296)
$ Further note : s262b -- Pope notes that sometimes the older forms were restored by preservative analogy via "clerkly influence" 
$ p115 s262a -- effects on -ulus,-ulum,-ula words. Attested for affecting those where preceding cons is k,g,t,p or b. There donˌt seem to be
	$ any words of this type ending in -dulus,-dulum, or -dula. 
ʊ > ∅ / [+prim] ([-syl])* [-cont] __ [+lat] [+syl] ([-syl]) #
$ p115 s262b -- effects on the -idus,-idis,-itis etc group : for prior consonsants Pope lists l, g, t, s, k, and r
	$ the most faithful way to render this also in line with Occamˌs Razor would seem to be [+cons] 
	$ *** NOTE s353 -- seems to imply it was possible for this to NOT occur for some words
	$ note also the frigidus contradiction: s297 & s316 vs. s262ii & s296i
ɪ > ∅ / [+prim] ([-syl])* [+cons] __ [+cor,-son,-cont] [+front,-lo] ([-syl]) #
ɪ > ∅ / [+prim] ([-syl])* [+cons] __ d̪ [+back,-lo] ([-syl]) #
$ p115 s262c -- effects on intertonic vowels standing between n/l and r 
[-lo,-stres] > ∅ / [+prim] ([-syl])* n̪ __ r [+syl]
[-lo,-stres] > ∅ / [+prim] ([-syl])* [+lat] __ r [+syl]

$ s353 : devoicing of labial and dental consonants that are now adjacent to t 
$ since aidier is excluded we can dodge fixing palatals too. 
[+ant,+cons] > [-voi] / __ t̪

$s127 s296i fakere case
[-stres,+front] > ∅ / [+prim] k __ [+cor,-strid,-nas] [+syl]

$as per p91 s187i -- ɣʷ > w when preconsonantal due to "slurring" 
ɣʷ > w / __ [+cons]

$p91 s186: betacism does not occur for w after k
$ after betacism, Pope speaks of k plus a u-glide--  interpret this to mean she is asserting a kw cluster
ɣʷ > w / k __ 

$p91 s186: w>beta. Occurred during the 1st and 2nd century ("Nerβa")
ɣʷ > β

$p73 s155iia and pp136-137 ss332-336 and p6 s9 : b > β intervocalically or between vowel and r (s372)
$According to s336 this occurred very early at least for the bilabial, 2nd century AD 
$Later authors group all voiced stops together for this shift, but Pope is unclear
$She states (s336) that it is attested earlier for b than the others but is unclear
$However she indicates a shift order in s307i that necessitates velar stop palatalization preceding intervocalic lenition
$So we give her the benefit of the doubt and place the lenition of the rest of the velar stops later,
$Right after the beginning of palatalization.
$ she is not clear about whether her j and w ("fricatives") are sonorant, but we will assume they are NOT
	$... given that she called them fricatives -- this is supported by her trajectory for rubeum > rouge (s676)
b > β / [+syl] __ [+son,-lat,-nas]

$ p115 s263 -- with proparoxytons with intervocalic g, both g and preceding vowel deleted "early" (s263)
	$ given the hypothesized forms listed by Pope, it is clear she thinks this happened before  ɪ > e and ʊ > o 
[-stres] ɡ > ∅ / [+prim] ([-syl])* __ [-stres] ([-syl])* #

$ per Pope s185 and s198, combination of vowels that have become adjacent and share the same quality become a single long vowel of same quality
$ in practice this only happens for e'e and o'o
[+front,-hi,-lo] [+front,-hi,+prim,-lo] > ∅ [+long]
[+round,-hi] [+round,-hi,+prim] > ∅ [+long]
[+front,-hi,-lo,+stres] [+front,-hi,-lo] > [+long] ∅

$Page 72-73, section 154i ~ elaborated p 89 s 179 , s222
$Classical Latin length distinction becomes a quality ("tense" for us) distinction
[+syl,-lo,-long] > [-tense]
[+syl,-lo,+long] > [-long,+tense]
[+syl,+long] > [-long]

$p73 s154iii ~ p190 s504 -- seems to have first occurred in the first and second centuries s504
$giving her the benefit of hte doubt, we place this after the length > tense shift, as otherwise oe would become ɛ
$ 	given that she doesnˌt specify it as long and writes it like a short vowel 
{a e̯;ˌa e̯;ˈa e̯} > {ɛ;ˌɛ;ˈɛ}
[+round,-hi,+syl] e̯ > [+front,-round,-back,+tense,-lab] ∅

$p144 s359 ~ p73 s156iii : simplification in ŋks, ŋkt clusters
k > ∅ / ŋ __ [+cor,-voi]

$p144 s359 ~ p73 s156iii : kst > st rule 
k > ∅ / __ s [+cons]

$p144 s359 ~ p134 s324-325 ~ p73 s156iii ~ p64 s130 ~ p6 s9i
$ frication of k before t,s ; attributed to Gaulish substratum p6 s9 (RECTUM > REXTUM -- see also discussion of attestations like paraxsidi in other sources.) 
$ Pope doesnˌt discuss the specific ordering of this vis-a-vis the kst>st rule, but this one would bleed that one and she never discusses an xst>st rule,
$ so we favorably assume this one comes second.
k > x / __ [+cor,-voi] 

$p144 s359 ~ p73 s156iii : g > w before m, Pope says this is first attested in teh 3rd/4th century Appendix Prodi 
$"opened and vocalized"-- Pope is explicit that it passes through a fricative stage p65 s135b
ɡ > [+cont] / __ m 
ɣ > w / __ m 

$p73 s156vi ~ p191 s505 ~ p64 s131: au > a under influence of tonic u in next syllable (irregardless of tense or length)
$ ... NOTE: Pope is not clear about when exactly this occurred, but we place it before ʊ > o for convenience
[-syl,-cons,-lo,+round,+back] > ∅ / ˌɑ __ ([-syl])* [+stres,+hi,+round,+back]

$p73 s154i ~ elaborated p89 s180 : ɪ > e and ʊ > o 
$according to Pope the lowering of ɪ was earlier than that of ʊ "which retained its value in parts of the Roman Empire up to the present"... but doesnˌt specify when exactly
$best to just place them together here. 
[+hi,-tense] > [-hi,+tense] 

$p328 s854 ~ p64 s131 : dissimilation of tonic vowel juxtaposed to final flexional vowel. 
$ *** this is a "tendency" as per Pope s854
$ Other authors have other explanations for this, like tensing of vowels before other vowels or even much earlier lengthening of them 
ˈo > ˈɔ / __ [+hi,+syl,+back]
ˈɛ > ˈe / __ [+lo]
ˈe > ˈi / __ e

$ p73 s156v ~ s262 ~ s360 
$ tl > kl -- attested first in the Appendix Probi as per Pope p145 s360
$ as noted by Pope s262, sometimes reversed under "clerkly influence" by preservative analogy
t̪ > k / __ [+lat]

$ p97-98 s205i ~ p73 s156ii : final m deletion  -- 
$ ... unlike some later authors Pope does not recognize a nasalization in Late Latin, instead holding that simple nasal consonant deletion occurred
$ Pope doesnˌt explicitly date this but considers it first attested in teh 3rd/4th century Appendix Probi
$ Pope notes it did not occur in monosyllabic words 
$ NOTE: as per p97-98 s205i -- unlike Italy and also South Gaul, North Gaul did not see effacement of s and t word-finally,
$ ... because "pronunciation was influenced by the teaching in schools" in North Gaul -- though this mainly concerns final t and s 
m > ∅ / [+syl] ([-syl])* [+syl] __ #

$ p185 s488 : o > ɔ before labial consonants 
$ *** NOTE : This is called a "TENDENCY" by Pope
$ she does not give a date to it other than saying it Late Latin
$ --- we give her the benefit and place it after final m deletion 
[+round,-hi,+syl] > [-tense] / __ [+lab,-son] 

$ -- kwinkwe > kinkwe dissimilation
$ Pope s823 iii. 
w > ∅ / k __ [+syl] ([-syl]) k w [+syl]

$FIRST PALATALIZATION: Palatalization begins in the fourth century as per Pope p129 s304
$t and d preceding yod become palatalized affricates
$p130 s308-9
{t̪;d̪} > {t͡sʲ;ɟ} / __ [+hi,+front,-syl,+cont] 

$ as per s306ii : k+yod > c c intervocalically only 
k [+hi,+front,-syl] > c c / [+syl] __ [+syl]

$p 124 s283-284 : palatalization of velar stops berfore e and i, s306-307 for before yod
[+hi,+back,-cont] > [+front] / __ [+cont,-lo,+front]
[+back,+front] > [-back] 

$p127 s296ii : palatalization of k blocked if coming after secondarily stressed velar vowel
$ ... and before intertonic unstressed e when coming from /ɪ/ (< /i/)  
c > k / [+back,+stres,-prim] __ e ([-syl])* [+prim] 

$absorption of yod into prev, now palatalized, consonant 
ʝ > ∅ / [-cont,+hi,+front] __

~Late Latin

$p131 s311, assigned to Late Latin in p73 s155-5iv :
$ as per s293 and s156 however this did not YET affect ng + pal-stop -- i.
$ trigger again in Gallo-Roman stage.
[+nas,+cor] [+hi,+front,-syl,+voi,+cont] > ɲ

$p131 s312, assigned to Late Latin p73 s155-5iv 
$ as per s293 and s156 however this did not YET affect l + pla-stop -- i.e. not words like culcita 
$trigger again in Gallo-Roman stage
l l ʝ > ʎ
l ʝ > ʎ

$per Pope s353: unstressed penultimate ɪ in -item, itum, idum, ita endings is deleted before any d > ð
$ we can use /e/ here because if it was e:, it would be stressed. 
e > ∅ / __ [+cor,-cont,+ant] [+syl] ([-syl]) #

$p73 s155iia and pp136-137 ss332-336 and p6 s9 : intervocalic lenition between vowel and (vowel or r)
$ valid targets before r included as well as d before l -- s372
$According to s336 this occurred very early at least for the bilabial, 2nd century AD 
$Later authors group all voiced stops together for this shift, but Pope is unclear
$She states (s336) that it is attested earlier for b than the others but is unclear
$However she indicates a shift order in s307i that necessitates velar stop palatalization preceding intervocalic lenition
$So we give her the benefit of the doubt and place the lenition of the rest of the velar stops later,
$Right after the beginning of palatalization. This should be roughly 4th century
$ inclusion of palatal voiced stop in this shift -- as per Pope p127 s297
[-delrel,+voi] > [+cont] / [+syl] __ [+son,-lat,-nas]
d̪ > ð / __ [+lat]

$p73 s155i ~ p91 s185 -- as Pope explained, h-effacement happened word-internally first. 
$It was apparently still being resisted among the educated classes at the time of St. Augustine, 4th century and early 5th century 
h > ∅ 

$p73 s156vi -- influence of tonic vowels on countertonic vowels
$***NOTE Pope calls these "TENDENCIES"
$ she does not seem to give a date to these
$ s505 for aw > a under influence of u specifically 
$ s127 for i>e
ˌi > ˌe / __ ([-syl])* [+hi,+front,+prim,-round,+tense] $i.e. by i
{ˌe;ˌɛ} > {ˌɑ;ˌɑ} / __ ([-syl])* [+lo,+prim]
$s505 ~ ˌɑ w > ˌɑ before round stressed sylls -- already handled elsewhere, don't need to redundantly do it here. 

$p73 s154ii : length returns for stressed vowels only, conditioned the open/closed context condition:
$ as per s197-198 -- not "blocked", including word final, followed by vowel, followed by cons + word coda only in a monosyllable,
$ followed by cons + vowel, or followed by plosive + l/r
$ note as per p53 s100, note that Pope does not consider glides to be consonants 
	$ but to be fair she specifies  "in hiatus with a following vowel" -- and all her examples feature
		$ hiatus with syllabic vowels, not semivowels
$ -- give her the benefit of the doubt and specify +syl not -cons
[+prim] > [+long] / __ #
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [+syl] 
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [+cons] [-cons] 
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [-cont] [+cons,+son,-nas] 
[+prim] > [+long] / # ([-syl])* __ [+cons] #

$ ~Early Gallo-Roman
$ Sixth and seventh centuries, as per Pope s163 

$ Pope s325ii intervocalic sk > ks before u,o  -- precedes s325i
$ Logically, should be placed before breaking of long lax vowels -- otherwise it will be triggered by lax o: > uo  
s k > k s / [+syl] __ [+syl,+tense,+round]

$ Pope s325i ks > xs again (s359) for words like kresko (s325ii) , then to > ç (s378,s324) ultimately to j (s325i) 
$ for convenience we are also placing here k>x before t (s325, again after the first time in Late Latin: plakitum as per s296i)   
	$ and the opening of k and ɡ to x and ɣ before l,r -- conveniently due to sound distributions
$ we can just refer to these as the coronals (since k and ɡ donˌt occur before n, d, z and we place the assibilation of palatals after this for convenience)
[+hi,+back,-cont] > [+cont] / __ [+cor,+cons]

$ intervocalic -qu- 
$ k > x before Popeˌs fricative w as per s327-330
$ note that Pope is fairly inconsistent as to the identity of the <u> in qu 
$ she seems to label it as a semivowel (u with glide mark) in s327-330
$ but marks it as her "fricative" w in s186-188
$ to reflect this we donˌt question it and just use w to reflect her usage, without questioning it...
k > x / [+syl] __ w [+syl]

$ s374ii : intervocalic -lw- > ll and -sw- > ss 
[+lat] w > l l / [-cons] __ [-cons]
s w > s s / [-cons] __ [-cons]

$ Pope p138-139 s341 loss of early Gallo-Roman ɣ:
$ Pope places this in the Gallo-Roman stage which she says starts at the end of the fifth century
$ However it is attested in mid-fifth century as per Greg of Tours (p138-139 s341) 
$ and was attested in Gaulish in the fourth century or even earlier (Pope s9)
$ Precedes (s341) loss of unstressed final o,u 
$ According to symbols used, this should precede ɑ > a (s341)
ɣ > ∅ / __ [+tense,+round,+syl]
ɣ > ∅ / [+hi,+round,+syl] __ [+lo]
ɣ > β / [+round,-hi,+back,+syl] __ [+lo]

$also, as per s323 ɣr > r pretonic after e
$ she says only /e/ but given the inclusion of peregrinum in her examples, 
	$ we can give her the benefit of the doubt and let it affect /ɛ/ too.
ɣ > ∅ / [+front,-hi,-lo,+syl] __ r [+prim]

$ Pope s374ii first round of β > w before another w -- will recur
$ as per comparing s484 and s481, clearly βw had a different fate from ðw or ɣw (including < -qu-) -- so this one happened first
β > w / __ w 

$ Pope ~ p78 s163.7 p139 s343 first effacement of β 
$ "when it was derived from classic Latin intervocalic b and stood before the vowels u or o or after tonic u" 
	$ s163:7 says "before labial vowels", as does 343 (though 343 says u or o too) 
β > ∅ / __ [+lab,+syl]
β > ∅ / [+prim,+hi,+round,+back] __ $i.e. after tonic u 

$ Pope s352: -ika endings -- atonic e is deleted BEFORE k becomes voiced
	$ she includes -ikat too -- vindicat > venche , masticat > mache 
	$ s349 : weak verbal forms follow suit. 
e > ∅ / __ k [+lo] ([+cons]) #

$ Pope p137 s335-336, also p77 s163-5 : voicing of k to ɡ intervocalically. 
$ Began in fifth century, "became general" in the sixth century as per s336
$ Explicitly occurred BEFORE slurring of intertonic vowels s349 -- unlike same slightly later shift for t(>d) (s350)
$ Explicitly occurs BEFORE beginning of second palatalization and before au > o s299
	$ potentially RECURRENT as per Pope s162 
$ this feeds ɡw > ɣw as per Pope s329 
k > ɡ / [-cons] __ [+syl]

$ Recurrence of Pope s333i
ɡ > ɣ / [-cons] __ [-cons] 

$Pope s334ii voicing of breathed fricatives 
$ must happen before first palatalization of s and z 
$ not specified in Popeˌs chronology -- but "recurrent" as per s162
$ and happened before first formation of palatal sibilant fricatives...
[+cont,-son] > [+voi] / [-cons] __ [-cons]
	
$ Pope p77 s163-1 ~ p164-165 s419 : Influence of final (atonic) /i/ on preceding tonic /e/ and /o/. 
$ Dated to 6th or 7th centuries (s163-1) 
$ Pope states this happened before the "weakening" of final atonic vowels. 
$ e > i and o > y 
$ Based on the way she has ordered the rules on page 77, 
$ it would appear she is asserting that this is the first appearance of /y/ in French. 
[+prim,+tense,-hi,-lo] > [+hi,+front] / __ ([-syl])* i # 

$ as per Pope p126 s293
$ palatalization of ng, lg and s in "word type of plangere, folgere, nascere, culcita, adergere, torkere.."  
$ potentially RECURRENT as per s162 
$ but definitely started before effacement of ɛ pre r/l and cluster simplification as per s293
$ r before the palatals explicitly not effected this way. 
{ŋ;ɫ;s} > [+hi,+front,-back] / __ [-cont,+hi,+front] [+front,-stres] [+cor,+cons,-lat] ([-syl])* [+syl] ([-syl])* #

$ Pope p77 s163-3 "effacement of penultimate ɛ before r and l"
$ comes before early Gallo-Roman cluster modification s293 
$ as per symbols used should come AFTER regressive palatalization assimilation of nasals, s and laterals
$ but BEFORE regressive palatalization of r ! 
ɛ > ∅ / __ [+cor,+son,-nas] ([-syl])* [+syl] ([-syl])* #

$ s189 : nβl > mbl (ordered earlier for benefit of the doubt)
n β > m b / __ [+lat] 

$ action resulting on clusters as formed from this previous rule (s163-3) and from proparoxyton deletion in Late Latin (s262) 
$ Denasalization -- s369, and glide development s370
$ b inserted between m + r or l 
$ d inserted between n,l,dark l,z,elya + r 
$ t inserted between s and pal. s + r 
∅ > b / m __ [+cor,-nas,+son,-syl]
∅ > d̪ / [+lat] __ r
{z r;n̪ r;s r} > {z d̪ r;n̪ d̪ r;s t̪ r}

$ as per Pope p126 s293: depalatalization of palatal stops that come into contact with following non palatal consonants
$ explicitly BEFORE assibilation (bleeds it)
[-cont,+hi,+front] > [-hi,-front,+cor,+ant,+distr] / __ [+cons,-front]

$p73 s154ii : length returns for stressed vowels only, conditioned the open/closed context condition:
$ as per s197-198 -- not "blocked", including word final, followed by vowel, followed by cons + word coda only in a monosyllable,
$ followed by cons + vowel, or followed by plosive + l/r
$ note as per p53 s100, note that Pope does not consider glides to be consonants. 
[+syl] > [-long] / __ [-syl] [+cons]
[+prim] > [+long] / __ #
[+prim] > [+long] / __ ([+cons]) [+syl]
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [-cont] [+cons,+son,-nas]
[+prim] > [+long] / # ([-syl])* __ [+cons] #

$ Pope p164 s418 : raising of "tonic free e" to i (tonic free defined in s197-198)
$ when preceded by a palatal 
$ Sixth/Seventh centuries as per Pope s163-11
$ Conveniently all such vowels will be long as per s154ii -- we use this for our purposes
$ Must come efbore assibilation of first palatalization results, which would bleed this for the voiced pal. stop
	$ (Pope does not specify the voiced one retained any palatal element after assibiliation-- she does for c though as per p )
ˈeː > ˈiː / [+cons,+hi,+front] __

$ s426 : ɔ tonic blocked, ɔ countertonic free or blocked, 
	$ and any o free or blocked with any level of stress raise to u 
	$ if before nasals.
	$ ... before diphthongization can occur
[+round,+tense,-hi,+stres] > [+hi] / __ [+nas]
{ˌɔ;ˈɔ} > {ˌu;ˈu} / __ [+nas]

$ s163-10 ~ s225, 227 -- first completed in Gallo Roman period I i.e. 6th-7th century as per s163-10
$ RECURRENT throughout period as per s162
$ ˈɛː and ˈɔː tonic free diphthongized 
$ because of action of previous rules we donˌt have to call the context, just call the long versions
$ which only occur in that context as per our previous rule. 
$ in practice to make this recur we probably have to make them long whenever they become free 
{ˈɛː;ˈɔː} > {ˈi e̯;ˈu o̯}

$s357 Opening of final k 
k > x / [+syl] __ # 

$ s311 and s312 contˌd : (can bleed assibilation) 
$ n palatalizes again before voiced palatals 
$ potentially RECURRENT as per Pope s162 
[+nas,-lab] > ɲ / __ [+cons,+hi,+front,+voi,-nas] 
$ l palatalizes again before all palatals, period
[+lat] > ʎ / __ [+cons,+hi,+front]
$ and they combine with the following palatal 
[-lat,-nas,-syl,+hi,+front] > ∅  / [+hi,+front,+son,+cons] __

$ s313-315 : r,s,z donˌt lose their primary place of articulation but DO palatalize under influence of succeeding palatals
$ potential RECURRENT as per Pope s162
$ s absorbs following: sc, stsj incldued
r ʝ > rʲ
z ʝ > zʲ
s [+hi,+front,+cons] > sʲ sʲ
s [+hi,+front,+cons] > sʲ sʲ  $ RECURRENCE in the form of s sʲ > sʲ 
sʲ > ∅ / __ sʲ sʲ $for sanity : prevents s s j from becoming triple sʲsʲsʲ

$ s306ii -- assibilation of cc done slightly differently than other contexts (see below) 
c c > t̪ t͡sʲ

$ Pope p77 s163-4 ~ p92-93 s191 ~ p125-126 s291-296 : first assibiliation of palatals
$ Attributed (s163) to sixth and seventh centuries
$ as per s291 c retains a palatal element in its articulation as t͡sʲ, but ɟ does not 
$ This stage (but NOT the depalatalizatoin of t͡sʲ explicitly (s296) happens BEFORE unstressed vowel loss
{c;ɟ} > {t͡sʲ;d͡ʒ}

$ Pope p139 s342 : second effacement of ɣ, "Later Gallo-Roman ɣ" -- but it seems this actually belongs to the early stage
$ should come BEFORE any raising of a 
$ this clearly BLEEDS the second palatalization where ɣ is concerned
$ as per s481 this seems to come BEFORE low vowel fronting 
$ s342i : before tonic u or o 
ɣ > ∅ / __ [+tense,+round,+prim]
$ s342iii : between o, u, aw and a 
ɣ > ∅ / [+round,-cons] __ [+lo] $ o|u|au __ a
$ s342ii : between a velar vowel and atonic u (short u > o , so atonic u or o)
ɣ > ∅ / [+back,-cons] __ [+tense,-stres,+round,+syl]

$Pope p113 s254.
$Final unstressed i, o, u become semi-vocalic and combine into diphthong with previous vowel. 
o > u / [+prim] __ # 
[+hi,-stres] > [-syl] / [+prim] __ # 

$ Pope p160-161 s404.7 -- she calls this one a "glide" -- NOT a fricative (but uses the same symbol) 
∅ > j / ˌe __ [+lo]

$ Pope p77 s163-2 ~ p90 s182 : Palatalization of ɑ > a
$ Pope confirms this also occurred in the diphthong ɑu (> au) -- p191 s505
$ Attributed (s163) to sixth and seventh centuries
[+lo] > [+front,-back]

$ per s182 : temporarily blocked in monosyllables
[+lo] > [-front,+back] / # ([-syl])* __ ([-syl])* #

$ s373 assimilation of labials b,p,β (and v) to following dental positions 
$ RECURRENT as per s162
$ appears to resolve in EARLY OLD FRENCH, concurrent with degemination 
[+lab,-nas,-round,+cons] > t̪ / __ [-cont,+cor,-voi]
[+lab,-nas,-round,+cons] > d̪ / __ [-cont,+cor,+voi] 
[+lab,-nas,-round,+cons] > s / __ s

$s371 nasal cluster assimilation 
{m n̪;n̪ m;m b} > {m m;m m;m m}

$s374ii : (n)nw > nβ intervocalically 
w > β / [+syl] (n̪) n̪ __ [+syl]  

$removal of geminates resulting from assimilations in 3+ consonant clusters
$Pope never explicitly says this but her trajectories for words make this clear
	$ and it is probably better to give her the benefit of the doubt on this rather boring error
{n̪ n̪;s s;d̪ d̪;t̪ t̪;w w;m m}>{n̪;s;d̪;t̪;w;m} / [+cons] __  

$s374i : w from hiatus u,o effaced if coming after two consonants 
w > ∅ / [+cons] [+cons] __

$ s322-326, palatalization of velar frics pre-coronal
[+back,+hi,+cont,-son] > [-back,+front] / __ [+cor]

$ s320-321, palatalization of ŋ before n,s,t (can also include d,z)
$ feeds dental palatalization
ŋ > ɲ / __ [+ant,+distr]
ŋ > ɲ / __ [+strid,+cont]

$ s321, absorption of following nasal by ɲ
[+nas,+cons] > ∅ / ɲ __ 

$ s322 
[+lat] > ʎ / [+hi,+front,+cons] __ 

$ placed in "Gallo-Roman group 1" i.e. 6th/7th centuries as per Pope s316-8ii
$ s316 palatalization of d and t following palatal cons.
$ occurs also for n and r when in position  
$ z and s do not need to be filtered out as they will already be palatalized, edh has not emerged yet. 
$ RECURRENT as per s162
$ must have been active AFTER assibilation (amicitatem > amistie)
$ and active AFTER intertonic vowel loss (amicitatem > amistie, medietatem > moitie . adiutare >aidier etc) 
$ and active BEFORE depalatalization of tsj (amicitatem > amitstate as per pope > amistie) 
$ and active BEFORE influence on a by preceding palatal
$ and active AFTER palatalization of velar fricatives
[+cor,+ant,-lat] > [+hi,+front] / [+hi,+front,+cons] __ 

$p127 s297 : developments of ʝ < ɟ : effacement intervocalically except between countertonic a and tonic e 
$ however this happens after ʝ can palatalize succeeding dental consonants in Gallo-Roman s316, which itself came after unstressed vowel effacement. 
ʝ > j / [+lo,+stres,-prim] __ [-hi,-lo,+prim]
ʝ > ∅ / [-cons] __ [-cons]

$p73 s154ii : length returns for stressed vowels only, conditioned the open/closed context condition:
$ as per s197-198 -- not "blocked", including word final, followed by vowel, followed by cons + word coda only in a monosyllable,
$ followed by cons + vowel, or followed by plosive + l/r
$ note as per p53 s100, note that Pope does not consider glides to be consonants 
	$ but to be fair she specifies  "in hiatus with a following vowel" -- and all her examples feature
		$ hiatus with syllabic vowels, not semivowels	
[+syl] > [-long] / __ [-syl] # 
[+syl] > [-long] / __ [-syl] [+cons]
[-prim] > [-long]
[+prim] > [+long] / __ #
[+prim] > [+long] / __ ([+cons]) [+syl] 
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [-cont] [+cons,+son,-nas] 
[+prim] > [+long] / # ([-syl])* __ [+cons] #
$ s198 checked for /e o a/ before enya and elya
[-hi,+tense,+syl] > [-long] / __ {ʎ;ɲ}

$ s414 recurrence of diphthongization (s225, 227 ~ s163-10)
{ˈɛː;ˈɔː} > {ˈi e̯;ˈu o̯}

$ s410, s414-415
$ Breaking of mid lax vowels by following palatal 
{ɛ;ˌɛ;ˈɛ;ˈɛː;ɔ;ˌɔ;ˈɔ;ˈɔː} > {i e̯;ˌi e̯;ˈi e̯;ˈi e̯;u o̯;ˌu o̯;ˈu o̯;ˈu o̯} / __ [+cons,+hi,+front]

$ as per s410 niece, tuertre cases 
{ɛ;ˌɛ;ˈɛ;ˈɛː;ɔ;ˌɔ;ˈɔ;ˈɔː} > {i e̯;ˌi e̯;ˈi e̯;ˈi e̯;u o̯;ˌu o̯;ˈu o̯;ˈu o̯} / __ [+cons,+cor] [+cons,+hi,+front]

$ s298-302, s413-415 -- Beginning of second palatalization 
$ Note: although Pope lists the second palatalization for the next period, her notes make it clear that she holds it to have preceded the a-raising therefore e/o-breaking phenomena
$ so caused. 
[+hi,+back,+cons] > [+front] / __ [+front,+syl] 

$ s254 recurrence -- final unstressed i , o , u in hiatus with tonic vowel (in Late Latin or)
	$ brought into hiatus in Early Gallo Roman become semi-vocalic. 
{i;o;u} > {j;w;w} / [+prim] __ #

$ s481: original aw to ɔ 
$ Pope differentiates original aw from a + w sequences -- we don't
$ however, as a matter of fact, we know for certain it was aw if it is before a consonant 
	$ (this is in fact wrong in some cases -- see the case of gauta > joue) 
{a w;ˌa w;ˈa w} > {ɔ;ˌɔ;ˈɔ} / __ [+cons]


$ Pope p183 s481 : Gallo Roman a-mutation under influence of following w or u>o 
$ must bleed s413 but not second palatalization
{a;ˌa;ˈa;ˈaː;a w;ˌa w;ˈa w;ˈaː w} > {ɔ;ˌɔ;ˈɔ;ˈɔ;ɔ;ˌɔ;ˈɔ;ˈɔ} / __ {w;[+syl,-stres,+round,+tense]}
[+tense,+round,+back,-stres,-cons] > w / [+syl,-tense,+round,-hi] __	

$ s417 Raising of free countertonic ˌa to ˌɛ if preceded by a palatal consonant
$ unless it is followed by tonic e in next syllable or if l/r come next
ˌa > ˌɛ / [+front,+cons] __ [+cons,-son] {[+syl,+hi];[+syl,+round];[+syl,-tense];[+lo]}
ˌa > ˌɛ / [+front,+cons] __ [+cons,+nas] {[+syl,+hi];[+syl,+round];[+syl,-tense];[+lo]}
ˌa > ˌɛ / [+front,+cons] __ [+cons,+son,-cor] {[+syl,+hi];[+syl,+round];[+syl,-tense];[+lo]}

$ s413
$ Raising of free tonic a to ɛ if preceded by palatal consonants 
$ We know it's free if it's long based on placement of this rule relative to others
ˈaː > ˈɛː / [+cons,+front] __

$ s414 recurrence of diphthongization (s163-10)
$ hits former tonic a 
{ˈɛː;ˈɔː} > {ˈi e̯;ˈu o̯}

$ s167 ~ s181 ~ s42 ~ s9 : beginnings of u > y -- u goes to ʉ
$ s42 -- "a very slow process" -- s167 begins in Early Gallo-Roman (but must come after the beginning of the second palatalization)
$ s9 -- due to Gaulish (also happened in Welsh,Breton,Cornish)
[+hi,+tense,+round,+syl] > [-front,-back]

$ Middle Gallo-Roman
$ Seventh century as per Pope s164

$Absorption of prior velar (now palatal) frics by lambda, resolving s322
$also by rj -- resolving s323
[+hi,+front,-syl,-lat] > ∅ / __ {ʎ;rʲ}

$ 164-1 Second palatalization resolves s298-302
[+back,+front] > [-back] 

$ s164-4 ~ s333 -- opening of d intervocalic
$ as per s372 -- also happens before r,l,m,n 
$ RECURRENT as per s162
$ since g and b have already opened and htey recur-- and ɟ doesnˌt occur in the right context -- we can include them too. 
$ however b explicitly doesnˌt not open before l or nasals as per s372
[-delrel,+voi] > [+cont] / [-cons] __ {[-cons];r}
[-delrel,-lab,+voi] > [+cont] / [-cons] __ [+lat] 

$ s372 : d̪ > ð before w 
d̪ > ð / __ [+cont,+lab,+cons]

$ s355-356 first opening of pre-coda t,d
$does not however occur after slurred vowel ə
$ would seem to happen BEFORE the palatal fricatives are lost as it doesnˌt happen it words like lit, nuit (<lectum, noctem)
{t̪;d̪} > [+cont] / [+syl] __ #

$ s305-- yod in initial position closes, as does Pope's w 
$ also -- s203 (for yod > gj) ; yod is closing after consonants 
$ w ~ ɣʷ closes initially : s636 ~ s192ii
$ s203 holds this begins in the "early Gallo-Roman" though its later stages occur after the influx of Frankish vocab
[+hi,-syl,+cont] > [-cont,-son,-delrel] / # __ [+syl]
{j;ʝ} > {ɟ;ɟ} / [+cons] __ [+syl]

$ s305 -- closed yod devoices if after a voiceless element (sapia > sache) 
ɟ > c / [-voi] __ 

$ s164.2 : palatal stops c,ɟ become postalveolar affricates 
$ Dated to seventh century in summary by Pope (s164)
$ s299 "must have taken place before the end of the 8th century" 
[+hi,+front,-cont,-ant] > [+delrel,+cor,-hi,+strid,+distr]

$ per s685 -- never explicated elsewhere -- m > n before d͡ʒ
m > n̪ / __ d͡ʒ

$s164-10 ~s250 complete effacement of unstressed penultimate
$as per s260: occurs in 7th century; but either does not occur or is reversed where voyelle d'appui is required as per s257-258
$the voyelle d'appui is inevitable ə
$ as per s259 : this resolves after the reduction of non-stressed non-low vowels everywhere, as there is a different outcome for
$ paroxytones as opposed to proparoxytones. 
[-stres] > ə / __ ([-syl])* [+syl] ([-syl])* # 

$ s261 ~ s350 : as per word trajectories seen in s350, under justification of s261
$ non-penultimate unstressed vowels except for a are effaced "early" when next syllˌs stressed vowel is a
$ this happens before the voicing of t
$ this will resolve after s257-259 does. 
[-stres,-lo] > ə / __ ([-syl])* [+lo,+prim]  

$ s26: purportedly under Frankish influence (Germanic "mutation"), the suffixes -arium and -aria
$ end up rendering -ier and iere, by means of changing the a to an open/lax e
$ r depalatalizes when this happens
$ only happens in the "suffix" -- i.e. when a prior syl exists
$ element exists in the word, not cases like varium or aria
$ thanks to Latin stress rules, we can safely assume we are talking about a long and stressed a
$ placement before 164.11 is decided by the presence of non-reduced unstressed final vowels in her forms
	$ but it must be after a-fronting, as she uses a rather than alpha. 
$ Attested in the Glossary of Reichenau and, in a name, in the Oaths of Strasbourg
ˈaː rʲ > ˈɛː r / [+syl] ([-syl])* __ [+syl] # 

$ s164.11 ~ s256 Reduction of non-stressed non-low vowels to schwa 
$ NOTE: this actually occurred a bit later than the ones above, but diachronically it is convenient to place it here.
$ ultimate effacement is "before the ninth century".
[-stres,-lo,+syl] > ə

$ s256 : ə effaced before unstressed a becomes the new ə, but retained in specific places (s256-259):  
ə > ə̯
$ s257ia : ə intertonic retained when after cons + r or l but not rr or ll 
ə̯ > ə / [+stres] ([-syl])* [-son] r __ ([-syl])* [+stres]
ə̯ > ə / [+stres] ([-syl])* [-lat] l __ ([-syl])* [+stres]
$ s257ib : ə intertonic retained when before ʎ,ɲ,ts or "any particularly heavy group of consonants"  
ə̯ > ə / __ [+front,+cons]
ə̯ > ə / __ [-syl] [+front,-cont]
ə̯ > ə / __ [-syl] [-syl] [-syl]
$s258a : ə retained before n̪ t̪ #
ə̯ > ə / __ n̪ t̪ (ə̯) #
$s258b: ə retained finally after tʃ,dʒ, cons+r/l but not rr/ll/lr, and after ɫn, ɫm 
$NOTE: this is incorrect as neither ɫ nor the affricates tʃ and dʒ will have developed yet 
 $ -- for ɫ this is wrong-- it first develops in the 9th century (ɫ: s390) 
  $ whereas the final and intertonic ə is lost explicitly "before the 9th century" (256) 
 	$  corrected in corrected version -- whereas Pope says that ə is disappearing finally and intertonically in the 8th [s260]  
ə̯ > ə / ɫ [+nas] __ #
ə̯ > ə / [-ant,+delrel] __ #
ə̯ > ə / [-lat,-syl] l __ #
ə̯ > ə / [-son] r __ #
$s259: ə retained in final syllable of proparoxytones that were not deleted in Late Latin or Early Gallo-Roman 
ə̯ > ə / ə̯ ([-syl])* __ # 
$Delete all the rest which were not specifically retained: 
ə̯ > ∅ 

$ Pope s351 : affricate tsj voices and depalatalizes when it is about to comes into contact with d through schwa fall, 
	$ and is followed by /ə/
	$ Pope attributes it technically to the "consonant group"
d̪ t͡sʲ > d͡z / __ ə 

$ s350 -- ... and t "immediately" voices if it comes into contact (by the previous rule) 
$ with a PRECEDING b, β or ʝ
t̪ > d̪ / [+lab,+voi,-hi,+cons,-nas] __ 
t̪ > d̪ / ʝ __ 

$ s316 palatalization of d and t following palatal cons.
$ occurs also for n and r (s317) when in the same position 
	$ Pope does not mention z and s in this way
$ RECURRENT as per s162
[+cor,+ant,-lat,-strid] > [+hi,+front] / [+hi,+front,+cons] __ 

$ s318 similarly triggered "palatalization" of FINAL s causing it to become the affricate
s > t͡sʲ / [+hi,+front,+cons] __ #


$ s367 d,t + s becomes the affricate when brought into contact
[+ant,+distr,-cont] s > t͡s

$ s373 assimilation of labials b,p,β (and v) to following dental positions 
$ RECURRENT as per s162
$ appears to resolve in EARLY OLD FRENCH, concurrent with degemination 
[+lab,-nas,-round,+cons] > t̪ / __ [-cont,+cor,-voi]
[+lab,-nas,-round,+cons] > d̪ / __ [-cont,+cor,+voi] 
[+lab,-nas,-round,+cons] > s / __ s

$s371 nasal cluster assimilation 
{m n̪;n̪ m;m b} > {m m;m m;m m}

$removal of geminates resulting from assimilations in 3+ consonant clusters
$Pope never explicitly says this but her trajectories for words make this clear
$ recurrent since the triggers are! 
{s s;d̪ d̪;t̪ t̪;m m}>{s;d̪;t̪;m} / [+cons] __  

$ action resulting on clusters formed form vowel losses 
$ Denasalization -- s369, and glide development s370
$ b inserted between m + r or l 
$ d inserted between n,l,dark l,z,elya + r 
$ t inserted between s and pal. s + r 
∅ > b / m __ [+cor,-nas,+son,-syl]
∅ > d̪ / [+lat] __ r
{z r;n̪ r;s r} > {z d̪ r;n̪ d̪ r;s t̪ r}

$ s189 : nβl > mbl 
n β > m b / __ [+lat] 

$p73 s154ii : length returns for stressed vowels only, conditioned the open/closed context condition:
$ as per s197-198 -- not "blocked", including word final, followed by vowel, followed by cons + word coda only in a monosyllable,
$ followed by cons + vowel, or followed by plosive + l/r
$ note as per p53 s100, note that Pope does not consider glides to be consonants 
	$ but to be fair she specifies  "in hiatus with a following vowel" -- and all her examples feature
		$ hiatus with syllabic vowels, not semivowels$ CORRECTION : shortening function operates before [-syl] rather [+cons] (and then # or non-sonorant [+cons] )	
[+syl] > [-long] / __ [-syl] # 
[+syl] > [-long] / __ [-syl] [+cons]
[-prim] > [-long]
[+prim] > [+long] / __ #
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [-cons] 
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [+cons] [+syl] 
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [-cont] [+cons,+son,-nas] 
[+prim] > [+long] / # ([-syl])* __ [+cons] #
$ s198 checked for /e o a/ before enya and elya
[-hi,+tense,+syl] > [-long] / __ {ʎ;ɲ}

$ s413-4 -- recurrence as per medietatem, adiutare 
$ Raising of free a tonic to ɛ if preceded by palatal consonants
$ recurses as per cases of adiutare and medietatem (s414) 
[+lo,+prim] > [-lo,+front,-tense] / [+front,+cons] __ #
[+lo,+prim] > [-lo,+front,-tense] / [+front,+cons] __ [-cons]
[+lo,+prim] > [-lo,+front,-tense] / [+front,+cons] __ [+cons] [-cons]
[+lo,+prim] > [-lo,+front,-tense] / [+front,+cons] __ [-cont] [+cons,+son,-nas] 

$ s414 recurrence of diphthongization (s163-10)
$ hits former tonic a 
ˈɛː > ˈi e̯

$ s167 ~ s181 ~ s42 ~ s9 : continuation of u > y -- u goes to ʉ
[+hi,+tense,+round,+syl] > [-front,-back]

$s182 : finally remaining velar a (only in monosyllables) is fronted, late enough so that it counterfeeds breaking and diphthongization
[+lo] > [+front,-back]

$ s164-5 ~ ss334
$ as per S350 -- t was voiced AFTER INTERTONIC VOWEL LOSS 
$ voicing of p, t, ts intervocalically ss334-335
$ RECURRENT as per s162
$ since k,s,f have already voiced intervocalically, and the new results of palatalization will never be intervocalic
$ and because the voicing of k,s,f is also recurrent (s162)
$ we can just have this as a universal intervocalic voicing rule
[-voi] > [+voi] / [+syl] __ [+syl] 
$ as per s372 p, t also voice before l,r and t voices before n 
[-voi,-delrel,+ant] > [+voi] / [+syl] __ [+cor,+son,-nas]
t̪ > d̪ / __ [+nas,+cons]
$ NOTE -- it would make a lot more sense for Pope to also have ç voicing to ʝ at this point before l,r... but she doesnˌt.

$ s352 : in deɣo and remaining deɣa suffixes, e (>ə) deleted ɑnd ɣ palatalizes
{d̪ ə ɣ;ð ə ɣ} > {d͡ʒ;d͡ʒ} / [+cor,-cont] __ [+syl] #

$ s164-7 ~ s335e : another bout of spirantization (recurrent anyways as per s162) 
$ before l,r included as per s372 (but not b before l as per 372iii)
[-delrel,+voi] > [+cont] / [-cons] __ {[-cons];r}
[-delrel,-lab,+voi] > [+cont] / [-cons] __ [+lat] 
$ s372 d > ð before nasals , and then ð > z before n "sometimes" 
	$(excluding the latter, does not seem to have diachronic use, examples are Roðnə >Rosne, boðne>bozne, but it ended as Rhone and borne.)
d̪ > ð / [+syl] __ [+nas] 

$p93 s192i kw > k before e and i at beginning of word
$ must come after second palatalization resolves
w > ∅ / # k __ [+front,-lo]

$ s164-12 : closing of tense and lax o to u by following nasal consonants ~s426
$ according to Pope (s426), attested in the Glossary of Reichenau (?)
$ s426 -- this explicitly comes BEFORE and BLEEDS the diphthongization of o > ou 
$ Pope does NOT specify that it becomes nasal at this point -- actually she says the "first nasal vowels in Frnech were a and ai in the tenth century" (s434)
$ but in all fairness it probably SHOULD be to prevent it from getting swept up in u>ʉ>y, the first stages of which are still active at this point
[+syl,-hi,-lo,+round] > [+hi,+tense] / __ [+nas,+cons]

$ s164-3 ~ s190 ~ s279 ~ s311,312,313,314,315 
$ ... palatalized dentals resolve into j + simple dental
$ for maintenance -- Pope doesn't account for the fact that this could end up with a j + j + Cons cluster
$ but this is not an interesting error, just a clumsy one -- obviously no such cluster can exist
$ so we bleed it with a special rule... 
$ Pope doesn't include n̪ in s164-3 but she does in s190.
{t̪ʲ;d̪ʲ;sʲ;zʲ;rʲ;n̪ʲ} > {t̪;d̪;s;z;r;n̪} / [+hi,+front,-syl] __ 
$ then realize the main rule here.
{t̪ʲ;d̪ʲ;sʲ;zʲ;rʲ;n̪ʲ} > {j t̪;j d̪;j s;j z;j r;j n̪}

$ s373 : oral labials efface before (coronal) affricates 
[+lab,-nas,-son] > ∅ / __ [+delrel] 

$p73 s154ii : length returns for stressed vowels only, conditioned the open/closed context condition:
$ as per s197-198 -- not "blocked", including word final, followed by vowel, followed by cons + word coda only in a monosyllable,
$ followed by cons + vowel, or followed by plosive + l/r
$ note as per p53 s100, note that Pope does not consider glides to be consonants. 
[+syl] > [-long] / __ [+cons] # 
[+syl] > [-long] / __ [+cons] [+cons,-son]
[+syl] > [-long] / __ [+cons] [+cons,+nas]
[-prim] > [-long]
[+prim] > [+long] / __ #
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [-cons] 
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [+cons] [+syl] 
[+prim] > [+long] / __ [-cont] [+cons,+son,-nas] 
[+prim] > [+long] / # ([-syl])* __ [+cons] #
$ s198 checked for /e o a/ before enya and elya
[-hi,+tense,+syl] > [-long] / __ {ʎ;ɲ}

$ s164-13 : diphthongization of tense e, o > ei, ou when tonic free(s225),
$  also tonic free a to ae "?" (s233)
$ and also s164-14 : "second bout of diphthongization of lax e tonic free
{ˈaː;ˈeː;ˈoː;ˈɛː} > {ˈa e̯;ˈe j;ˈo w;ˈi e̯}

$ s420 : tsj ejefcts a j across a prior n if the vowel before is e 
∅ > j / [+front,-hi,-lo,+tense,+syl] __ n̪ t͡sʲ

$ s308: tsj ejects j into vowel groups that are not e before # or vowel then # (-itia and -itium suffixes). 
$ to implement this we use a dummy...
t͡sʲ >  q / [-hi,-lo,+front,+tense,+syl] __ ([-syl]) #
∅ > j / [+syl] __ t͡sʲ
q > t͡sʲ

$ s343ii second effacement of beta between diphthongs ending in w and unstressed final u (or ʉ) 
$ as per Popeˌs example in s343 this includes Latin lupum -- so must come AFTER beginning of 2nd diphthongization
β > ∅ / w __ [+tense,+round,-stres]

$ s164-11 ~ s256 Reduction of non-stressed non-low vowels to schwa 
$ ultimate effacement is "before the ninth century".
[-stres,-lo,+syl] > ə

$ s355 -- final spirantization reversed due to slurring .
{θ;ð} > [-delrel] / ə __ # $reverse

$ s164-15 ~ s223 ~ s234: raising of lax countertonic ɛ,ɔ to tense e,o except in ɛr[+cons] ɛɫ[+cons] and ɔɫ[+cons]  
{ˌɛ r;ˌɛ ɫ;ˌɔ ɫ} > {ˌɨ r;ˌɨ ɫ;ˌɯ ɫ}/ __ [+cons]
{ˌɛ;ˌɔ;ˌɨ;ˌɯ} > {ˌe;ˌo;ˌɛ;ˌɔ}

$ s359 : β and ɣʷ brought into contact with other consonants vocalize to w (ex: fabrica > faurga > forge) 
{β;ɣʷ} > {w;w} / __ (ə) [+cons]

$ s164.6 ~ s 189 
β > v 

$ s258 ə inserted after final CONS + r,l clusters 
∅ > ə / {[-son];[+front,-syl,+hi]} r __ #
∅ > ə / [-lat,-syl] l __ #

$ Later Gallo-Roman 
$ 8th and 9th centuries as per Pope s165

$ s427 tonic free a ... i.e. ae̯  ... becomes aj before n, m 
$ bleeds Pope s231-233
e̯ > j / [+lo,+stres] __ [+nas,+cons,-hi]

$ s256 : ə effaced before unstressed a becomes the new ə 
ə > ∅

$s355-357 open word finals again if unsupported 
[-delrel] > [+cont] / [+syl] __ # 
$ close if became supported
[+cont,-son,-strid] > [-delrel] / [+cons] __ #

$s326 Later Gallo-Roman ks formed from vowel deletions > s, not to xs
k > ∅ / __ s #

$ s165-2 ~ s251 : reduction of unstressed a to ə final and intertonic
a > ə / [+syl] ([-syl])* __

$ s318 ~ s165-4 palatalization of final s by enya and elya preceding 
s > t͡sʲ / {ɲ;ʎ} __ # 

$ s165.8 ~ s279iv resolution of prae-consontal enya to jn when praeconsonantal
ɲ > j n̪ / __ [+cons]

$ s165-3 ~ s206 : devoicing of all final consonants that have become final -- operates after s165-1.
$ she says "all consonants but doesnˌt list the sonorants -- so we say non-sonorants
[-son] > [-voi] / __ #

$ s329 : secondary stressed vowels have ɣw go to ww
ɣ > w / [+stres,-prim] __ w

$ s327 resolution of ɣw clusters
$ s327 : ɣ (<x) palatalizes after tonic front vowels 
ɣ > ʝ / [+prim,+front] __ w

$ s327 ɣ assimilates to following w intervocalically 
ɣ > w / [+syl] __ w [+syl]
$ as per s374 : so do beta and delta
$ but delta only after w > v if a follows
ð w > w v / ð __ [+lo]
[+cont,-son,-hi] > w / @ __ w 
 
$ s328 limited recurrence of breaking of ɛ before the palatal
{ɛ;ˌɛ;ˈɛ;ˈɛː} > {i e̯;ˌi e̯;ˈi e̯;ˈi e̯} / __ ʝ w
 
$ s329 and etc 
w > ɣʷ / ʝ __ r
w > ɣʷ / ʝ __ [+syl] 
ɣʷ > v / @ __ 
ɣʷ > ɡ / # __ $s192ii

$ s357 -- loss of final x after unstressed sylls 
x > ∅ / [-prim] __ # 

$ s357 x palatalizes after tonic a, i. However, neither is raised. 
x > ç / [+lo,+front,+prim] __ #
x > ç / [+hi,+front,+prim] __ #

$ s357, elsewhere, x closes back to k 
x > k / __ #

$ s357, s359, s324, s325: ç merges into ʝ
ç > ʝ

$ should be after resolution of palatal consonants. 
$ s404 : ʝ > j ("i-glide" for Pope) after vowels; j is simply absorbed by preceding i
ʝ > j / [-cons] __ 
j > ∅ / [+hi,+front,+tense,+syl] __

$ s165.5 leveling of au to o (s505) 
{a w;ˌa w;ˈa w} > {ɔː;ˌɔː;ˈɔː} 

$ s231-3 : Pope is very unsure of the fate of a e̯ when it did not become aj before nasals, but what she settles on is this:
$ a e̯ >"e e̯ " (we interpret as long eː) except various places it was bled (after palatal cons, before palatal cons, before nasals, before /w/) 
$ syllable length rules of Gallo-Roman (open and stressed =long, else =short) must no longer be effective after this point. 
$ Buckley criticizes this paradigm from Pope 
{a e̯;ˌa e̯;ˈa e̯} > {eː;ˌeː;ˈeː}

$ s165.7 : another round of cluster modifications follows
$ CLUSTER REDUCTIONS pp 145-150 ish... 

$ 365ii early denasalization nns, rns . Utlimately becomes the alveolar affricate, see two rules down. 
n̪ > t̪  / [-cons] [+cor,-lat,+son] __ s

$ s365ii s t s > ts 
s t̪ s > t͡sʲ / [-cons] __ [-cons]
s > ∅ / __ t͡s

$ s367 d,t + s becomes the affricate 
[+cor,-delrel] s > t͡sʲ

$ s365 : effacement of middle consonant in groups that donˌt end in l or r 
[+cons] > ∅ / [+cons] __ [-son]
[+cons] > ∅ / [+cons] __ [+nas,+cons]

$ s374ii: fricative + w > w w 
[+cont,+cons,+voi,-son] > w / __ w 

$ recurrence of s374i 
w > ∅ / [-cont] [-cont] __

$ s377 s > z before voiced and/or "breathed" consonants (excluding s, but including f)
s > z / __ [+voi,+cons]
s > z / __ [+cont,+cons,-cor]

$ s372ii t,d become edh before r,l,n,m
[-delrel,+cor] > ð / __ [+son,+cor] 
[-delrel,+cor] > ð / __ [+nas] 

$ s372iii p,b become beta then v before r, halts at b before l
p > b / [+syl] __ [+son,+cont,-nas]
b > β / [+syl] __ r
β > v

$ s365 : elimination of middle velars in three consonant intervocalic clusters
{s k l;r ɡ l} > {z l;r l} / [-cons] __ [-cons]

$ s368-370 denasalization and glide development
$ b inserted between m + r or l 
$ d inserted between n,l,dark l,z,elya + r 
$ t inserted between s and pal. s + r 
∅ > b / m __ [+cor,-nas,+son,-syl]
∅ > d̪ / [+lat] __ r
{z r;n̪ r;s r} > {z d̪ r;n̪ d̪ r;s t̪ r}

$s371 nasal cluster assimilation 
{m n̪;n̪ m;m b} > {m m;m m;m m}

$ s373 assimilation of oral labials b,p,β (and v) to following dental positions 
$ RECURRENT as per s162
$ appears to resolve in EARLY OLD FRENCH, concurrent with degemination 
[+lab,-nas,-round,+cons] > t̪ / __ [-cont,+cor,-voi]
[+lab,-nas,-round,+cons] > d̪ / __ [-cont,+cor,+voi] 
[+lab,-nas,-round,+cons] > s / __ s
[+lab,-nas,-son] > ∅ / __ [+delrel] 
[+cor,-delrel] > ∅ / __ [+lab,-cont] 
[+cor,-delrel] > ∅ / __ [+cor,-cont] 
[+cor,-delrel] > ∅ / __ [+delrel] 

$ s366 degemination 
{p p;b b;f f;m m;t̪ t̪;t̪ t͡s;t̪ t͡sʲ;t̪ t͡ʃ;d̪ d̪;d̪ d͡ʒ;n̪ n̪;s s;z z;l l;k k;ɡ ɡ;n̪ n̪} > {p;b;f;m;t̪;t͡s;t͡sʲ;t͡ʃ;d̪;d͡ʒ;n̪;s;z;l;k;ɡ;n̪}

$s378 z > ð before voiced dentals 
z > ð / __ [+cor,+ant,+distr,+voi,+cons]

$~ Early Old French 
$ as per Pope p9 s16, this spans from the 9th century to the end of the 11th. "Formative period of the French language.”

$ Pope s257 : unstressed ə > e before yod. She implies this is also happening before ʎ and ɲ in her examples
$ s252 : this feeds ej > oj phenomena.
ə > e / __ [+front,+son,+hi,-syl]

$s291-s292 -- t͡sʲ eventually depalatalizes. Pope does not explicate when, but it is clearly before Later Old French.
$ This would seem to be AFTER the influence exercised by palatals 
           $on preceding vowels such as e (s418)
$ as the results of the first palatalization DO exercise this influence 
$ As it was clearly non-palatal t͡s by Later Old French, we place this at the end of Early Old French
t͡sʲ >t͡s

$ s329 and s484 countertonic e becomes o before w and tonic u -- doesnˌt state when explicitly other than "in Early Old French" 
$she doesnˌt seem to mention this being effected by former o,
	$ so we assume it comes before s166.2 ~ s184 
ˌe w >ˌo
ˌe >ˌo / __ [+hi,+round,+prim] 

$s166.9 ~ s383-391 -- "beginnings" of l-vocalization praeconsonantal. 
$As per Pope s167, "unclear" how much and if the vocalization aspect was present during this period.
$First attested in 9th century -- s390. 
[+lat] > [+back] / __ [+cons]

$s382iv and s384 : but back l becomes ʎ after i (originally Pope has this as lʲ, but Occam's razor as
	$ diachronically there is no difference -- Pope is inconsistent, using ʎ for fils but lʲ for ficelle)
ɫ > ʎ / [+hi,+front,-round] __

$ s166.1 ~ s183 ~ s9 ~ s36 ~ s42 completion of u fronting. 
$"Spread slowly from the South" (s183, s36), continuing in the tenth century (s42), with some Eastern and Northern (esp Walloon, Picard) dialects remaining unaffected.
$ precedes u>o (s166.2~s184) as per s183. 
[+hi,+round,-back] > [+front]

$ s166.6 ~ s434 ~ s441.1,441.3: first nasalization, effects a and aj, in the 10th century
j > [+nas] / [+lo] __ [+nas,-syl]
[+lo] > [+nas] / __ [+nas,-syl]

$ s166.6 ~ s434, s439 ~s441.2,441.4: second nasalation, effects syllabic e variants and ej, in the 11th century. Bleeds later ei > oi shift.
$ should NOT effect ie̯ , which was nasalized in the third nasalization, in the 13th century. (s441.5 etc -- and then lowered later).
j > [+nas] / [+front,-hi,+syl] __ [+nas,-syl]
[+front,-hi,+syl] > [+nas] / __ [+nas,-syl]

$ s166.10 ~ s377 effacement of preconsonantal z, accompanied by compensatory lengthening of prior vowel. 
$ Complete before the Norman Conquest of England (1066) as per s377
[+syl] > [+long] / __ z [+cons]
z > ∅ / __ [+cons]

$ s166.5 ~ ~s223 ~ s234-235 reduction of ˌe > schwa when free. 
$ Due to increasing weight of stressed syllables. 
$ Attributed in the late 11th century via a letter of Anne of Russia, see s235
ˌe > ˌə / __ ([+cons]) [-syl] 

$s665 (stated in sound table but nowhere else): ˌə reverts to ˌe if before ʎ
ˌə > ˌe / __ ʎ

$ s166.3 ~ s226-7 : uo > ue; see also ss550-554 for later development. 
$As per s226, this happened "before the end of the [EOF] period". 
$The mutations of ei and ou seem to have occurred later.
o̯ > e̯ 

$ s330 : early leveling of aj before w -- case of aqua -- 11th century. 
ˈa j > ˈɛː / __ w 

$s489 : ou >eu bled in Early Old French by ou >u before labials. 
$Date not exactly known. 
[+tense,+syl,+round,-hi,-lo] w >[+hi] ∅ / __ [+lab,-syl]

$s490: countertonic "sometimes" o > ə under influence of (following?) tonic u>y or o>u  
ˌo >ˌə / __ ([-syl]) [+prim,+tense,+round]

$s435: dentalization of final m after vowels. 
$s435 -- accepted by late 11th century 
m > n̪ / [-cons] __ #

$ s166.4 ~ s226-7 :  ei > oi, ou > eu. As per s226, occurred "before the middle of the twelfth century".
$ She places it in EOF-- so we place it there too, though clearly at the end. 
$ Any e before yod effected.
$ per s226 : effects ei whether tonic, intertonic or countertonic, but only tonic ou 
[+round,+back,+tense,-hi,+stres] > [-back,+front,-round,-lab] / __ w 
[+front,+tense,-hi,-lo] > [+back,-front,+round,+lab] / __ j 

$ s411: ˈue̯j >"yi̯j" > yj and ˈie̯j >(ii̯j >) i
$ see also s410~s514-5
ˈu >ˈy / __ e̯ j
e̯ > ∅ / [+hi,+tense,+prim] __ j
j > ∅ / ˈi __

$ s520: early oj(uj?),ɔj >oɛ̯,ɔɛ̯ before r 
j > ɛ̯ / [+syl,+back,+round] __ r 

$ s674 : countertonic ɔw > uw bled before z and v where it goes to ɔ, as well as when blocked by one cons then free after.
$ (Pope doesn't realize that at this point ð may not have been deleted yet... she gives laudare as an example of "in hiatus" 
	$ (but she notes herself the loss of θ and ð was not finalized "until the middle of the twelfth century") 
$ s673 : this also happens for tonic ɔw
$ Pope only calls this for ɔw and never for ow 
w > ∅ / [+back,+round,-hi,-tense,+stres] __ {v;z}
w > ∅ / [+back,+round,-hi,-tense,+stres] __ [+cons] [-cons]

$ s166.2 ~ s184 o > u. As per s184, occurs in the eleventh and twelth centuries.
$ s518: this also means oi > ui
$ except for early shift before labial consonants (see s489), this is bled by 166.4. 
$Pope places it in EOF so we place it there too-- but clearly at the end of the period.
[+round,+tense,+back] > [+hi] 

$s405-406 ɲ final > j ɲ when after a e (not ɛ) u (<o) or y.
$ called "Early Old French" by Pope (s406)
∅ > j / [+hi,+round,+syl] __ ɲ #
∅ > j̃  / [+lo] __ ɲ #
∅ > j̃  / [-round,-hi,-lo,+tense,+front] __ ɲ # 

$s407i : glide develops between e tonic or countertonic and ɲ intervocalic
	$  and between e tonic and ʎ intervocalic
∅ > j / [-hi,-lo,+front,-round,+tense,+prim] __ ʎ [+syl]
∅ > j̃ / [-hi,-lo,+front,-round,+tense,+stres] __ ɲ [+syl]

$s407ii : same for y countertonic or tonic 
∅ > j / [+hi,+front,+round,+stres] __ ʎ [+syl]
∅ > j̃ / [+hi,+front,+round,+stres] __ ɲ [+syl]

~Old French I

$s166.6~s439 ; beginning of first lowering of nasalized e-varieties -- late eleventh century.
[+front,-hi,-lo,+syl,+nas] > [-tense]

$~Later Old French
$AKA Old French II. As per Pope s16, from end of eleventh century to beginning of the 14th. 

$ s555 ue̯w > ye̯w : Pope seems to imply this happens in the late 11th century
[+hi,+round] > [+front,-back] / __ e̯ w 

$ s556 ye̯w > yø̯w 
	$ s556 "in the course of the eleventh and twelfth centuries the middle element was rounded to ø and stressed" 
e̯ > ø̯ / [+hi,+round] __ w

$s171.3 : voicing of intervocalic stridents, recurrence of s334
$She says it occurs for s and f both, and specifically says it occurs in Later Old French
	$ in s171.3 : "... in intervocalic were voiced, s beoming z and f, v..." 
s > z / [-cons] __ [-cons]
f > v / [-cons] __ [-cons]

$Pope s372 : ð >ɫ / __ l
$date unclear, not specified by Pope  but should be before ɫ goes to w. 
ð > ɫ / __ [+lat]

$Pope s441.2~s447-8 : ɛ̃>ã in the 11th to 12th centuries.
[+nas,-hi,+syl] > [+lo,+tense]
 
$ Pope s500 -- ir > ie̯r when stressed and before consonants. 
$ feeds ie̯ >je shift in 12th century, must precede it.
∅ > e̯ / ˈi __ r [+cons]

$s385~s390 vocalization of dark l variants 
$ per Pope s390: attested in rhymes by middle of 12th century: 
[+lat,+back] > w

$ Pope s550 - 551 : ˈue̯ is monophthongized to ø
$ Attested in 1137 -- "over the course of the 12th century"
$ "Stages not fully determined but appear to be ˈue̯ > ˈuø̯ > w'ø > ˈø"
$ NOTE: Pope errs in notating this as ue̯ undergoing this shift, when the u should have become fronted to y by this point...
$ She also explicitly limits it to hte stressed diphthong 
ˈu e̯ > ˈø

$ Pope s372 : ð occasionally assimilated to r but when it did and didnˌt was
	$undetermined at the time of writing (assimilated: butina >borne but Rodanum >Rhone, etc...)
	$shift here is hypothetical
	$TODO exclude for paper demonstration and include for demonstration of how system
	$helps show how Pope can be improved upon using DiaSym.
	$note the z >ð >r shift may have actually been a Picard characteristic (s378i)
ð > ∅ / r [+syl] __ n̪
ð > r / __ n̪


$ s382iv ~ s384 meanwhile lʲ which has been limited to praeconsonantal position after i-variants is effaced
lʲ > ∅

$s330 ~ s388 ~ s538-540 : a glide develops between ɛ and w
$ can occur for either stressed or secondarily stressed ɛ (bellitatem >beaute -- a case of secondary stressed ɛ for this)
∅ > a̯ / [-hi,-lo,+stres,-tense,+front] __ w
[-hi,-lo,+syl,-tense] >[-long] / __ a̯ w

$s388 ~ s544 : glide of /e/ after eː (from Gallo Roman a in open sylls)
$ note this can only come from primarily stressed a (>ˈeː) 
ˌeː > ˈe e̯ / __ w

$ s388 ~ s544: ee̯w > ie̯w -- must be in the 12th century
ˈe > ˈi / __ e̯ w

$ s172a ~s346-7~ᵴ372 : th-effacement  – finalized in middle of twelth century. 
	$began dialectally in North and East in 9th century. 
{θ;ð} > {∅;∅}

$ s422 e (include ə too for good measure...) "intertonic" (i.e. stress-less) moves up to i before palatal consonants (ɲ,ʎ)
{e;ə} > {i;i} / __ [+hi,+front,+cons]

$ s421 countertonic a brought into contact with tonic y raises to e ... (eventually to ə...) 
$ happens after the loss of the interdental frics. 
ˌa > ˌe / __ ˈy

$ s492-3 : tonic e opens to ɛ in blocked syllables when followed by l or r. Twelth century. 
ˈe > ˈɛ / __ r [+cons]
ˈe > ˈɛ / __ [+lat] [+cons]

$ Recurrence of s166.5 ~ ~s223 ~ s234-235 reduction of ˌe > schwa when free. See s421. 
ˌe > ˌə / __ ([+cons]) [-cons] 

$ s544 : ie̯w >jew as part of stress shift. Occurred during 12th century. 
$per s509-510 ~ s470-472 (see also s512-513) this can be input as part of a larger shift,
	$ dated to the same time, that moved ie̯ to je everywhere it occurred. 
$ per s470 -- predates a second nasalization of e, in the 13th century. 
	$This second nasalization then saw ẽ >ɛ̃ lowering, but it wasnˌt accepted till the 17th century
$ Fed by s388. Feeds e>ø / __ w shift. 
$ Seems to only occur for stressed ˈi. TODO may have to correct this if wrong.
$ also s538 : ɛa̯w > e̯aw for both stressed and secondarily stressed ɛ and 
	$per s538 "Later 12th century"
	$Pope doesnˌt give relative dating for the closure (ɛ>e) and stress shift so we group
		$them together. 
	$Pope notes -- s508 ~ s472-- the leveling of diphthongs started in the south and west. 
	$ / __ w context isnˌt necessary since ɛa̯ only occurs specifically in that context...
$include also here s555-556 : yø̯ > ɥø
{ˈi e̯;ˌɛ a̯;ˈɛ a̯;ˈy ø̯} > {j ˈe;e̯ ˌa;e̯ ˈa;ɥ ˈø} 

$Pope s541-545 :  12th century -- ew >øw . Is fed by ie̯>je (12th cent); feeds øw>ø (late 12th cent)
[-hi,-lo,+tense,+syl] > [+round,+lab] / __ w

$Pope s575: tonic e in former closed but now open syllables goes to ɛ in 12th century
$ short tonic e can only be closed, making our job easy
$ does not feed s541
{ˈeː;ˈe} > {ˈɛː;ˈɛ} / __ ([+cons]) #
{ˈeː;ˈe} > {ˈɛː;ˈɛ} / __ ([+cons]) [+syl]
{ˈeː;ˈe} > {ˈɛː;ˈɛ} / __ [-cont] [+son,+cor,-nas,+cons] [+syl]

$Pope s528-529: aj > ɛj when praeconsonantal
$Pope does not give a specific date. Makes sense to be here, given spellings ˌai" for wɛ >ɛ later...
[+lo] > [-lo,-tense] / __ j [+cons] 

$Pope s528-529 : aj > ɛj word finally
[+lo] > [-lo,-tense] / __ j #

$ Pope s466-467 : ãj > ɛ̃j, everywhere, twelfth century.
[+lo,+nas] > [-lo,-tense] / __ j̃

$Pope s541~545: øw >ø in later 12th century. 
w > ∅ / [+round,+front,-hi,+syl] __ 

$ s166.8 ~ s192 : deletion of w in kw,gw. 
$ ɥ also deleted after k,g at this time (s516) As per s192, late 12th century.
$ yj >ɥi early before k,g to feed this (s503 ~ s514 ~ s516) 
{y j;ˌy j;ˈy j} > {ɥ i;ɥ ˌi;ɥ ˈi} / [+back,-cont] __
[-syl,+round,+cont] > ∅ / [+back,-cont] __ 

$ s547-548 : ɔw > u in the thirteenth century. 
$ s548: late 12th and 13th centuries. 
[-hi,-lo,+back,+round] w > [+hi,+tense] ∅ 

$THIRD NASALIZATION : late 12th and early 13th 
$ must be after the original ɛ̃ > ã
$ all old targets effected, in addition to: 
$ je : s434 ~ s441.5 ~ s470
$ u : s434 ~ s441.7 ~ s459 ~s464  (s464: started early 12th century)
$ ø : because we know it comes before i and y, convenient to incldue here [s434 ~ 441.11 ~ 477]
[+syl,-front] > [+nas] / __ [+nas]
[+syl,-hi] > [+nas] / __ [+nas]

$ s556: ɥø > jø is bled after labials and velars
ɥ > ∅ / [+lab,+cons] __ [+front,+round]
ɥ > ∅ / [+back,+hi,+cons] __ [+front,+round]

$ as suggested by s670, normal development of oj>uj,ɔj } wɛ is interrupted 
	$when before a nasal 
	$Pope does not state this explicitly except that her trajectory in s670 suggests it
	$some inference done to make this work (and efficiently so)
	$... giving her the benefit of the doubt
{u j;ˌu j;ˈu j;ɔ j;ˌɔ j;ˈɔ j} > {w i;w ˌi;w ˈi;w i;w ˌi;w ˈi} / __ [+nas]

$ s409i ~ s239 : oi (> wɛ) emits j between itself and other tonic palatal vowels
$ for reasons of organization we realize this as having uj,ɔj go to wɛj before tonic palatals
{ˌu;ˌɔ} > {w ˌɛ;w ˌɛ} / __ j [+front,+prim]

$ s519-521 : oj(>uj), ɔj > oɛ̯(uɛ̯),ɔɛ̯ everywhere 
	$ except (s521) when before another yod or countertonic in hiatus with the tonic vowel. 
$ TODO/NOTE: A bit of a contradiction is present here
	$ s519 Pope attributes this shift to the "late 12th and 13th centuries"
	$ but she describes the first stage, lowering of j to ɛ̯ as follows: 
		$ "the less stressed high element of both diphthongs, under the influence of the lower first element, was lowered to ɛ..."
		$ however, if this is after o > u, which occurs in the 11th-12th centuries as per Pope s184, then it that logic does not obtain
		$ because u is not lower than i. 
	$We give Pope the benefit of the doubt and assume she meant uj>uɛ̯ by analogy
		$ and so place it in the date she mentioned in LOF.
	$TODO fix this. 
j > ɛ̯ / [+syl,+back,+round] __ 

$s521: reverse for now when in the conditions specified. Will be completed in the 16th century in Middle French section. 
ɛ̯ > j / [+syl,+back,+round] __ j
ɛ̯ > j / [+syl,+back,+round] __ [+prim]

$ s518-521 : uɛ̯,ɔɛ̯ > wɛ 
$ s519: late 12th and 13th centuries. 
{u ɛ̯;ˌu ɛ̯;ˈu ɛ̯;ɔ ɛ̯;ˌɔ ɛ̯;ˈɔ ɛ̯} > {w ɛ;w ˌɛ;w ˈɛ;w ɛ;w ˌɛ;w ˈɛ} 

$s409ii ~ s239 : y emits j before non-high unrounded palatal vowels with at least some stress (stress part inferred from s239, which is cited by Pope)
∅ > j / [+hi,+front,+round,+syl] __ [+stres,+front,-hi,-round]

 $s514-517: yj >ɥi everywhere not already mutated.
 $s514: 13th century
 $as per s671 -- effects nasal variant as well.
[+front,+round,βstres,βprim] [+front,-syl,-cons] > [-syl] [βstres,βprim]

$ s555-556 ɥø > jø
ɥ > j / __ [+front,+round,-hi]

$ s556 jø > ø after dʒ 
j > ∅ / d͡ʒ __ [+front,+round,-hi]

$ FOURTH NASALIZATION: finally effects all vowels, extended to i and y
$ 13th century
$ s434 ~ s439~s441.6-441.10~s451-457
[+syl] > [+nas] / __ [+nas,+cons]
$handling of unstressed ə̃ as per s434
ə̃ > ə 
ə > ə̃ / __ n̪ t̪ #

$ as per s669-670 : wɛ nasalized takes form of wĩ for now. 
$ Exact order unknown but this seems most in line with what Pope has said elsewhere
[+front,-tense,+nas] > [+hi,+tense] / w __ 

$ Pope s528-529 : ɛj > ɛː praeconsonantally. 
$ ɛ may have become long ɛː compensatorily as per s560 ("some writers say..")
	$  but this does not appear diachronicallly useful. 
j >  ∅ / [-round,-tense,+stres] __ [+cons]


$ Pope s378ii : as per the 14th century Orthographica Gallica, Pope argues s > x before dentals. 
$ Note: other accounts likely have s > x before ALL consonants...
$ This bleeds normal s-effacement as per Pope -- debatable. 
[+syl] s > [+long] x / [+syl] __ [+ant,+cor,+cons]

$s437: n̪ is absorbed by ə̃ in ə̃nt ending actually goes back to the 13th century. 
n̪ > ∅ / ə̃ __ t̪ #

$ Pope s172d ~ s375-379 ~ s564 ~ s567 : praeconsonantal s effaced after vowels...
$ s377 : had not yet happened in mid 13th century -- late 13th century...? 
$ however it must be before ts > s
$ ...engendering lengthening of previous vowel.  
[+syl] s > [+long] ∅ /  __ [+cons]

$ s173a ~ s580 ɔː > oː  when free and long -- Pope says 13th century in s173a 
$ but must come after s effacement and resultant lengthening as per s580ii
[-lo,-hi,+back,-tense,+long] > [+tense] / __ (x) ([-syl]) [+syl]
[-lo,-hi,+back,-tense,+long] > [+tense] / __ (x) ([-syl]) #

$ s172b ~ s194 : before end of 13th century, all affricates become sibilants
[+delrel] > [+cont]

$Pope s247 : ə effaced if after fricative or plosive and before r/l.
$Pope does not give an exact date here...
ˌə > ∅ / {[+cont,-son];[-delrel]} __ [+son,+ant,-nas] [+prim]

$~Middle French
$Middle French covers the 14th to 16th cenuries as per Pope

$ s464 : continuation of nasalizing tendency into Middle French -- stil productive except for i and y (i.e. promener, fromage...) 
[+syl,-hi] > [+nas] / __ [+nas,+cons]
[+syl,-front] > [+nas] / __ [+nas,+cons]

$handling of unstressed ə̃ as per s434 -- recurse but without ə̃nt which has been lost by now per s437
{ə̃;ˌə̃} > {ə;ˌə} 

$ x effaced -- some time after the 14th century, when Orthographica Gallica was written
[+syl] x > [+long] ∅ /  __ [+cons] 

$ Pope s685: implied elsewhere but only stated in the table
$ m praeconsonantal goes to n
m > n̪ / __ [+cons] 

~Old French II

$ s435 : final ɲ > n̪ : likely in 13th century based on rhymes, 
	$ but "ng","gn" spellings retained till the 16th
	$ Pope has this completed only by Middle French in her tables, not as part of Later Old French. 
ɲ > n̪ / __ #

$ s268-9 : stressless ə effaced before another vowel too
	$ s269 began in 13th century, not accepted till the 16th
$ lengthening per s562
 $ Pope consistently does not have this for the attestment based tables:
	$ s664 MF form "bəos" (beaux), s665 "bəote" for beaute', s667 agneaux, s674 oiseaux
	$ our compromise is having the intermediate stage of ə̯V in FLLAPS
	$ realizing the lengthening aspect afterward as well. 
$ per examples in s269, 271 etc : when she says vowels she must mean "nonconsonantals"
ə > ə̯ / __ [-cons]

$ s244 : lengthening of following a is preceded by assimilation of ə > a : actual formation of lengthened vowel by "contraction" handled by another rule, s242a
$ lengthening implemented in later rule, via s242a ~ s561 
$ per s666 -- this happens before Pope places the marker for Middle French with her table
	$ which we interpret to be circa 1550
$ unlike other effects on ˌə adjacent to other vowels (243-245 etc) which are placed after it
ˌə > ˌa / __ [+lo,+stres] 

$ s243-245 : countertonic ˌə effaced / __ V 
	$ s243 began in 13th, 
	$ "became very usual" in 16th... but traditional spellings are maintained a bit longer. 
	$ s245 -- some exceptions regarding əy > y, some cases it instead went to ø
$ lengthening per s562
$ consistent with treatment of s268-9, we have reduction to ə̯ realized before MF marker
	$ and realize the lengthening and total effacement afterward
$ per examples in s269 and s271 : when she says vowels she must mean "nonconsonantals" 
ˌə > ə̯ / __ [-cons]

$ s270 ə coming after another vowel is effaced 
$ lengthening per s562
$ s270 : began in the 14th century but not accepted until the 16th, 
	$ when it was "general and accepted by most grammarians" 
$ $ consistent with treatment of s268-9, we have reduction to ə̯ realized before MF marker
	$ and realize the lengthening and total effacement afterward
$ per examples in s269, 271 etc : when she says vowels she must mean "nonconsonantals"
ə > ə̯ / [-cons] __

$ s529ii: ɛ j > e word-finally
$ note s560 says "earlier" (i.e. EOF) aj(>ɛj)>ɛː renders ɛ (possibly long ɛː per poets cited) 
	$  but does not (explicitly) state this for ɛj going to e word finally -- so we do not implement it as such. 
$ s529: accepted in the 15th century (Villon accepts it)
$ this is for -ai final words not the -aie final words, see below. 
$ DISTINCT from the later shift of final aj# formed Middle French which resolved in the 17th
		$ i.e. s532. ; these are fed by the final loss of e̯ per s562
[-lo,-hi,-tense,+front,+syl] j > [+tense] ∅ / __ #

$ s486 : rounding of e-sounds to ø between two labial consonants or ʒ __ [+lab]
$ based on Pope's evidence, say it was accepted in early 15th century 
	$ first reported by Guiart, who wrote in the early 1300s. 
	$ Next reports of it are usage by Villon (lived 1431-1463) and then Palsgrave (born 1485) 
[-back,-round,-hi,-lo] > [+front,+round,+tense] / {ʒ;[+lab,+cons]} __ [+lab,+cons]

$ denasalization of ĩ before it is lowered as per s452
$ occurs "before intervocalic nasal" (s452)
$ as per s440 - ỹ can be handled at the same time. 
$ as per 441.10 :  so can ɥ̃ĩ 
[+nas,+front,+hi,+syl] > [-nas] / __ [+nas,+cons] [+syl]
[-syl,-cons,+round,+front] > [-nas] / __ [-nas]

$ s451 : ĩ > ẽ  -- 15th century (>ɛ̃ not until later sixteenth century as per s452 
	$ -- H Estienne (1582) still says there is a difference,
		$  but lowered pronounciation is accepted by Tabourot (1587) and Lyttelton(1566)
[+nas,+front,-round,-lo,+syl] > [-hi] 

$ s441.3 ~ s466-467 :  ɛ̃j̃ > ɛ̃ before denasalization which was 15th and 16th centuries -- so 15th century
	$ Pope later says s467 that denasalization was in 16th century
$ this specific shift is accepted by Villon (15th century) 
j̃ > ∅ / [+nas,+front,-tense] __ 

$ s496 : ɛ > a / __ r in 15th and 16th centuries (later reversed for many words)
$ reported by Villon (15th) and Henri Estienne (16th) 
[-round,-tense] > [+lo,+tense] / __ r

$ s534-538 ~ s560 : aw > o: -- originally said to be 15th-16th centuries
$ long as per s560
$ s535 -- attested in 1537-1548, and in Ramus 1561 -- so seems to be complete by early 16th
{ˌa w; ˈa w} > {ˌoː;ˈoː}

$ s535~s538-539 : e̯oː >ə̯oː
$ s539 -- reported by Erasmus, who lived around the turn of the 16th century, clearly complete by the writing of Beze on 1584. 
$ fed by aw > o
e̯ > ə̯ / __ [+round,+back,-hi]

$ s510 je > e after ʎ,ɲ,ʃ,ʒ . Late 15th - 16th centuries
$ still not accepted by Palsgrave and Meigret in 1545 but accepted by Estienne 1582
	$ Pope doesn't say this explicitly but give her the benefit of the doubt -- this does NOT occur for the nasal jẽ
$ s512 -- shift was earlier in the West.
j > ∅ / [+front,+cons] __ [+front,-hi,-lo,-round,+syl,-nas]

$ s516 : ɥi to i in "less stressed syllables' and "after the group consonant + r" 
$ "still hesitation in the 16th century" -- say early 16th cent. 
ɥ > ∅ / __ [+hi,+front,-round,-prim]
ɥ > ∅ / [+cons] r __

$ s521 : oɛ̯ (uɛ̯, ͏ɔɛ̯?) > wɛj before tonics, o > wɛ before j #
$ final completion of process started much earlier.
$ Sixteenth century -- accepted by Meigret and Baif
[+back,+round,-stres] ɛ̯ > w ɛ
[+back,+round,+prim] ɛ̯ > w ˈɛ
[+back,+round,+syl] ɛ̯ > w ˌɛ

$ s436-437 ~ s563 : effacement of nasal consonant praeconsonantal after nasal vowels
$ s437 : before middle of 16th century
	$ mentioned by Peletier (1517-1582)
	$ absorption of consonant in unstressed ə̃n̪t̪ ending goes back to 13th century per Hebrew glosses 
$ s563 effacement of praeconsonantal nasals causes lengthening of prev nasal vowels... 
$ s436, 438 : at the same time n̪ word final disappears except when the next word starts with a vowel -- in keeping with our dataset we delete these now as well.
[+nas,+syl] [+nas,+cons] > [+long] ∅ / __ {[+cons];#}
[+nas,+syl] j̃ [+nas,+cons] > [+long] j̃ ∅ / __ {[+cons];#}

$ s392 : final -l effacement after e:, i, y, u
$ regular by Later Middle French
$ restoration for many cases for e:, y and u -- but this is not a phonologically mediated process (rather lexically and socially driven)
$ accepted by Henri Estienne (late 16th)
$ also by Palsgrave, Tabourot (late 16th) 
$ say mid 16th 
[+lat] > ∅ / [+hi,+syl] __ #
[+lat] > ∅ / [+front,-round,+tense,+long,-lo] __ #

$Pope s247 : ə effaced if after fricative or plosive and before r/l.
$Accepted in 16th century. 
ˌə > ∅ / [-cont,-son,-delrel] __ [+son,-hi,-nas]
ˌə > ∅ / [+cont,-son] __ [+son,-hi,-nas] 

$ s530 ~ s532: s531 final ajə become ɛː right after final ə is effaced next to it...
$ moved here for agreement with FLLAPS which has these words with final ɛː more in line with Peletier
$ that it is long ɛː not short ɛ is inferred because of s562...
$ obv comes after s271
$ s532 : "accepted only in the 17th century"
$ Peletier (1549) accepts it. 
$  -- Lanoue (1596) accepts only in some cases
$ "hesitation in Early Modern French" 
[+lo,+front] j > [-lo,-tense,+long] ∅ / __ (ə̯) #

$ s562 -- per consistency on FLLAPS Pope tables, ə̯ after another vowel effaced with prior lengthening at this point.
$ but only before a stressed syllabic
[+stres] ə̯ > [+long] ∅ 
ə̯ > ∅ / [-cons] __

$ s272 : effacement of intertonic ə between "n, r or l" and other consonants
$ intertonic -- most have stress level on either side 
$ as per s272: begins twelfth and thirteenth centuries but only becomes regular in the 16th, and even then hesitation leads to doublets
ə > ∅ / [+stres] ([-syl])* [+cor,+son,+cons] __ [+cons] ([-syl])* [+stres]
ə > ∅ / [+stres] ([-syl])* [+cons] __ {r;l} ([-syl])* [+stres]

$s579: ɔ lengthens before z,v ... and then any long ɔː becomes oː 
[-hi,-lo,+back,+syl,-tense] > [+long] / __ {z;v} 
[-hi,-lo,+back,+syl,+long] > [+tense]

~Middle French

$ s451-452 ẽ > ɛ̃ in later sixteenth century
$ However this does not occur in the clusters of jẽ and wẽ until the early 17th century, in Early Modern, rather than Middle, French 
	$ -- see s473-474, 669-670 for wẽ; s470-471 for jẽ; 476 for ɥɛ̃
[+front,-lo,+nas,+syl,-round] > [-hi,-tense] / # __ 
[+front,-lo,+nas,+syl,-round] > [-hi,-tense] / [+cons] __ 
[+front,-lo,+nas,+syl,-round] > [-hi,-tense] / [+syl] __ 

$ s467-468 : denasalization of ɛ̃ (from ɛ̃j̃, ĩ, ãj̃, and ẽj̃) in mid to late 16th century
$ attested in Lyttelton 1566 (s468)
[+front,-lo,+nas,+syl] > [-nas] / {[+cons];[+syl]} __ [+nas,+cons] [-cons]

$ s494: e > ɛ before l, ʎ in 16th century
$ Peletier (1549) still has /e/, Meigret gives both before both l and ʎ,
$ while Meigret (also 1500s) fluctuates
$ while Beze has /ɛ/ -- so we place it in the second half of the 16th. 
[-hi,-lo,+syl,+front,-round] >[-tense] / __ [+lat]

$ s495 : e > ɛ when r CLOSES the syllable in 16th century (will repeat again when final ə before an r is deleted-- in 17th century)
$ for word-final r, only applies in monosyllables
$ not accepted yet by Meigret (1500s), Lanoue,
$ H. Estienne appears to be unsure (?)
$ seems accepted by the time of Hindret (1687) though some hesitation continues
$ -- very late Middle French to early Modern, possibly early 17th century
[-hi,-lo,+syl,+front,-round] > [-tense] / __ r [+cons]
[-hi,-lo,+syl,+front,-round] > [-tense] / # ([-syl])* __ r #

$ s486 : new ø variants (from e/ɛ/ə under labial influence) all close to y except in stressed syllables
$ appears to have been accepted in the late 16th century based on Pope's presented evidence
$ Ramus (lived 1515-1572) reports that beuvons and buvons are used by different people
$ Vaugelas (1585-1650) also reports on variation still occurring in his lifetime. 
$ only happens to ø that was once e/ɛ/ə -- must be before a labial.
[+front,+round,+tense,-prim] > [+hi] / __ [+lab,+cons]

$ s562, s243-245, s268-9, s270: 
$ completion of loss of schwa adjacent to vowels
$ and lengthening of adjacent stressed vowels (s562)
$ s562: accepted widely by sixteenth century, spelling changes a bit later, 
	$ we broke the shift up because of the way Pope did tables not recognizing it (based on orthography no doubt)
		 $as a "compromise"
$ Və# finals are simplified before MF marker per consistency.
[+stres] > [+long] / ə̯ __
ə̯ > ∅ / __ [+syl]

$ s242a ~ s561 merging of adjacent and similar vowels into long vowels.
$ Accepted in the sixteenth century (but started in the thirteenth) 
$ accepted by Regnier -- very late 16th, early 17th -- s242
[+lo] [+lo] > ∅ [+long]
[-lo,-hi,+front,-round,+syl] [-lo,-hi,+front,-round,+syl] > ∅ [+long]
[+hi,+back,+round,+syl] [+hi,+back,+round,+syl] > ∅ [+long]
[-hi,+back,+round,+syl] [-hi,+back,+round,+syl] > ∅ [+long]

$ s242b specifications on coalescence of countertonic a
$ s561 : length of aũ destination 
ˌa ˈũ > ˈãː
ˌa ˈi > ˈɛː 
ˌa ˈĩ > ˈɛ̃ː
ˌa > ∅ / __ [+prim] $covers chaine case. 

$ s477 denasalization of jɛ̃ from jẽ (<je + n <ɛː + n) at end of 16th century
$ Beze does not accept it, nor do Meigret or Peletier
	$ with denasalization as jɛ finally being attested in Lanoue 1596
[+front,-lo,-round,+nas,+syl] > [-nas] / j __ [+nas,+cons] [-cons]
	
$ s570 i : a lengthens before ʎ in final ending aʎə
[+lo] > [+long] / __ ʎ ə #

$ s570ii : lengthening in a:sə,ɛ:sə,i:sə endings (Pope says this happens when /s/ was originally a geminate "ss" --- but ts and ss had merged into s centuries ago as per her chronology)
[+front,-round,+syl] > [+long] / __ s ə #

$ s565, 566, 567: lengthening before final s that will be effaced
[+syl] > [+long] / __ s #

$ s273 final ə postconsonantal becomes an "off-glide" before it disappears forever... 
$ reported by Beze 1564 but does not bleed some of the lengthening and quantity changes conditioned on final ə
ə > ə̯ / __ #

$ s173.1b ~ s576 e:, je: >ɛ:, jɛ: before single consonant then ə, or single cons then word coda
$ not accepted by Peletier, Lanoue oscilates, Baif oscilates
ˈeː > ˈɛː / __ [+cons] [-cons,-back,-front]
ˈeː > ˈɛː / __ [+cons] #

$ s366: late degemination of r, with lengthening of any prior vowels
[+syl] > [+long] / __ r r 
r r > r / __ {ə;ə̯}
r r > r / ə __ 

$173.1c ~ s586 : long a becomes back ɑ (still long) -- 
$ s586 -- still was palatal in 16th century as per Ronsard and interchange of e/ɛ and a before r 
$ "but possible that some differentiation had begun earlier" 
$ first remark seems to be 1567 by Plantin 
$ "toward the end of the period" --  late 16th century 
[+lo,+long,+syl] > [+back,-front]

$s241 : consonantalization of countertonic high vowels before lower vowels
$ 16th century, "Later Middle French" 
$ accepted by early 17th -- attested in Vaugelas
[+hi,+stres,-prim] [-hi,+syl] > [-syl] [+stres]

$s569: Pope citing Beze, intervocalic z engenders lengthening of prior consonants
$giving Pope benefit of the doubt, we place this after long a velarization, because of examples like masure /mazyʁ/
$ early 17th?? 
[+syl] > [+long] / __ z [+syl]

$s570iii ending aʒə sees lengthening of a 
$ giving Pope benefit of the doubt, we place this after long a velarization, because of examples like voyage /vwajaʒ/
[+lo] > [+long] / __ ʒ ə #

$ recurrence of s239 : wˌɛ emits j if before tonic vowel -- late 16th century
∅ > j / w ˌɛ __ [+prim]

$~Early Modern French

$ s477 denasalization of œ̃ after ø̃ is absorbed into it (œ,ø + n originally NOT y + n which has already denasalized to y)
[+front,+round,+nas,+syl] > [-tense,-hi]
[+front,+round,+nas,+syl] > [-nas] / __ [+nas,+cons] [-cons]

$ s474-476 denasalization of wɛ, Pope implies this was in the 17th century (s474-476)
[+front,-lo,+nas,+syl] > [-nas] / w __ [+nas,+cons] [-cons]

$ s395 : r becomes a glide in certain positions... 
$ r "losing its trill" (in the index, Pope explicitly attributes the destination as ɹ)
r > ɹ / [-cons] __ {#;+cons}

$ s580 open o lengthens and raises before s or z that is about to be deleted
[+prim,-tense,+back,+round,-hi] > ˈoː / __ [+strid,-cont] #

$ s611-620 : final fricative and plosive consonants deleted as a result of liaison phenomena
$ s611 : began in 13th century, established by 16th, s620 accepted (grudgingly) after the early 17th 
$ s618-619 : counteraction led to preservation quasiregularly where it was f or k in a monosyllable. 

$for preserving f and k as per s618-169
$ TODO Pope misses that f seems to retain itself almost always when not supported
$ TODO she also misses the specific conditions that meant that "the word would have lost its identity" (s619)
$ these are implemented here -- TODO delete for purposes of demo? 
∅ > ə̯ / # [+syl] [-syl] k __ #
∅ > ə̯ / # [-syl] [+syl] k __ #
∅ > ə̯ / [+syl] f __ #

$ə̯ will be deleted by rule after this one ... 
$now implement final cons loss as per s611-620: 
[-son] > ∅ / __ #

$ s273 : final "off-glide" ə is deleted.
$ for convenience we group this with:
	$ s539 ə̯o: > o: finally accepted in the 17th century
ə̯ > ∅

$ RECURRENCE
$ s495 : e > ɛ when r CLOSES the syllable in 16th century (will repeat again when final ə before an r is deleted-- in 17th century)
$ for word-final r, only applies in monosyllables
$ not accepted yet by Meigret (1500s), Lanoue,
$ H. Estienne appears to be unsure (?)
$ seems accepted by the time of Hindret (1687) though some hesitation continues
$ -- very late Middle French to early Modern, possibly early 17th century
[-hi,-lo,+syl,+front,-round] > [-tense] / __ r [+cons]
[-hi,-lo,+syl,+front,-round] > [-tense] / # ([-syl])* __ r #

$ s470-474 :  final acceptance of wẽ,jẽ opening to wɛ̃,jɛ̃
$ accepted in the early 17th century
$ for convenience ø̃ > œ̃ handled also in here. 
[+nas,+front,+syl,-lo] > [-hi,-tense]

$ s457 : ỹ >ø̃ begins in late 16th century only accepted in the 17th century. 
[+nas,+syl,+front,+round] > [-hi]

$ s444 : denasalization of ã  -- 16th century beginning, accepted seventeenth century 
$ s440 : accepted in "Early Modern French"
$ for convenience we also group the denasalization of wɛ̃,jɛ̃ here...
[+front,-round,+syl,+nas] > [-nas] / __ [+cons,+nas] [-cons]

$s511 establishment of je>ie "diaeresis" in cases of C + l/r + je
j > i / [+cons] [+ant,+son] __ [+front,-hi,-lo,+tense,-round,+syl]

$ s532: final aj to ɛ, accepted in the 17th century
[+lo,+front] j > [-lo,-tense] ∅ / __ #

$ s531.ii : aj followed by tonic vowel becomes ɛj, accepted in late 17th century
[+lo,+front] > [-lo,-tense] / __ j [+prim]

$ s400-401 : final r deletion 
$ began in sixteenth century but successfully reversed by sociolinguistic interference (prestigious restoration) for all except for er and jer terminations in polysyllabic words.
ɹ > ∅ / [+syl] ([-syl])* [-hi,+front,+tense,-lo] __ #
ɹ > r $reassertion of trill elsewhere. 

$s196 Second h-deletion. Starts much earlier but accepted in late 17th century
h > ∅ 

$ s394 ~ s498 : r becomes uvular 
$ seventeenth century (s394) 
r > ʀ

$ s121~s170~s223~s508~s602: leveling of stress -- stress no longer distinctive for vowels.
[+stres] > [-stres]

$ s460 : ũ > ɔ̃ in 17th century, but still not complete (s462) in 1696 (!)  
[+back,-lo,+nas,+syl] > [-hi,-tense]

$ s463: ɔ̃ denasalizes in open syllables when followed by nasal cons. 
$ s463: first attested late 17th century, not accepted until 18th.
$ for convenience œ̃ also handled in here. 
[+round,+nas] > [-nas] / __ [+nas,+cons] [+syl]

$~Modern French

$ s525 wɛ > wa -- first attested late 16th century
$ as per s525, not really accepted except before r "until the Revolution destroyed the old tradition"
ɛ > a / w __ 

$s441.1~s443 ã > ɑ̃ in Modern French
$Pope does not give an exact date for this; she merely says "in the modern period"
{ã;ãː} >[-front,+back]

$ Pope s381 ~ s687 : ʎ > j "in the course of Modern French" 
ʎ > j

$ Pope s177.2: ə effaced anywhere it does not bring three consonants into a cluster. 
ə > ∅ / __ #
ə > ∅ / __ [+syl]
ə > ∅ / [+syl] __
ə > ∅ / {#;[+syl]} [-syl] __ [-syl] {#;[+syl]}
