Re: NATLANG: Gaidhlig volunteer needed
|From:||Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 3:32|
On 3/21/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <tristan@...> wrote:
> If it was me, I'd put the aspiration last: Aspiration is defined as
> delayed onset of voicing, so that the important part of the aspiration
> of t_j_h will occur after the palatised stop has been released. I'm
> surprised you say the aspiration occurs before any audible palatised
> sound does---but maybe you're thinking of the voicelessness?
No, I was thinking that the palatalization of a palatalized stop is
mostly audible in the onset of the following vowel, which comes after
> When a sound is velarised, it basically has a [M] (open back unrounded
Don't you mean "close back unrounded vowel"? [M] is unrounded [u],
right? That's as close as it gets.
> superimposed, much like a labio-velarised sound has a [u]
> superimposed, or a palatised sound has a [i] superimposed
I hadn't thought of those that way, but in terms of [w] and [j]. The
vowels do make sense, though, and that helps a lot. Thanks!
> Perhaps you or people around you sometimes vocalise your/their /l/'s:
> if so, you'll notice you get a sound somewhat like /o/ or /u/, but
> (frequently) without the labialisation.
[l=] still sounds pretty distinct from  or [M], but I guess there's
a similarity there.
> Anyway, so what I'm saying is the back of your tongue will be in a
> similar position as it is for a [u] (a cardinal one---many English
> dialects have a somewhat/rather/very fronted /u:/), but without the
Yeah, I have no trouble pronouncing [M] and . ([M] is the Japanese
/u/, in particular. Also where I get to practice my [P]s..)
> (Note that English /l/ are (velarised) alveolar lateral approximates,
> not dental ones.)
Yeah, point. Technically the bit I read about English not having the
dental version is correct, but still misleading. Do any languages
have a phonemic distinction between dental and alveolar or
postalveolar POA outside of the fricative series?
> Also, [l_e] could represent a pharyngealised [l] (used frex in the
> Arabic pronunciation of the word "Allah"); if the difference is
> relevant, you can spell it as [l_G], which is in IPA a superscripted
> gamma. It also looks nicer than an overlaid tilde.
[G] is one place I prefer the CXS to real IPA. The IPA versions of
 and [G] are far too similar for my taste, especially in
Thanks for the help!
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>