Re: [4:] ~ [r]

On Sunday, September 12, 2004, at 05:49 , Muke Tever wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 09:43:53 -0400, Trebor Jung <treborjung@...>
> wrote:
>> Since [4] is a tap, and [r] is a trill, wouldn't [4:] be essentially the
>> same as [r]? Or is there a difference?
>
> They might possibly be the same...
No, as I understand it, they cannot be the same. The [:] symbol denotes
_length_ or prologation of sound; it does not denote iteration. A tap - a
_single rapid_ contact with the roof of the mouth by the tongue - by its
very definition cannot be prolonged.

> but given the punctual nature of a tap, I'm not sure if [4:] could really
> be said to mean anything
Indeed, it cannot. Nor should [:] be confused with gemination ('twinning')
which is the sequence of two identical adjacent segments across a syllable
boundary within a single morpheme, e.g. Italian _notte_ /not.te/. I am not
aware of geminated flap, i.e. [4.4], but if it did occur that would,
presumably, be two taps (but I am open to correction on this).

A trill refers to any sound made by the rapid tapping of one organ of
articulation against another. The dental/alveolar trill could be
considered, I guess, as iterative tapping; but that is not a prolongation
of _a_ tap. Also while taps are confined to the
dental/alveolar/postalveolar and retroflex series, trills may be bilabial,
  dental/alveolar/postalveolar or uvular. Further, trills may be
accompanied with friction, when they are known as fricative trills. AFAIK
a tap is just a very rapid stop with no friction possible. So taps &
trills are best considered IMO as different beasts.

> (though /4:/ might--and I wouldnt be surprised to find [r] there).
That's a whole different ball-game, as they say   :)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
"They are evidently confusing science with technology."
UMBERTO ECO				September, 2004