Re: What _is_ rhoticity? (wa laterals (was: Pharingials etc))

At 01:59 14.2.2004, Roger Mills wrote:

>Just a possible way out of this morass:  Let us suppose that all rhotics
>originally start out as tapped or trilled [r], with all the acoustics
>thereof-- this seems likely on the basis of Romance (trill in Ital, Span,
>dialectal trill vs. uvular in Fr., trill in Portugal vs. vl.velar fric in
>Brazilian), German (dialectal trill vs. velar?/uvular), and Slavic (from
>what I'm told); even in Indonesian langs. (Ml/Indo trill, dial/related
>langs. vd or vl. velar fric.) etc. etc.----- so however a language's /r/ is
>realized, there is a sense that "this is underlying phonemic /r/" and the
>speech organs act accordingly, producing lowered 3d formant (or whatever it
>is that marks a "rhotic"...)
I've seen it suggested that tongue grooving is
involved in most if not all rhotics.

/BP 8^)
--
   B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@melroch.se (delete X)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Truth, Sir, is a cow which will give [skeptics] no more milk,
and so they are gone to milk the bull."
                                     -- Sam. Johnson (no rel. ;)