Re: Rhotics (was: Poll: What looks best?)

Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:

> On 7/6/07, Paul Bennett <paul.w.bennett@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Now maybe it's time to start the big debate about what, really,
> > > does it mean that something is rhotic? :)
> >
> > I think last time, after the dust had settled, and the blood had been
> > mopped up, we ended up with something like "rhotic is in the eye of the
> > conlanger", and/or "when I use the word rhotic, it means exactly what I
> > want it to mean".
> >
> > It certainly seems to be a question for the ages.
>
>
> I thought it was rather well-defined *acoustically*;
Maybe it is, but such a definition has been notably absent in previous CONLANG
discussions of what, if anything, "rhotic" means.

> the difficulty is
> mapping the acoustics back to a set of sounds that makes sense in
> articulation-space.

Reply