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

On Thursday, February 12, 2004, at 07:21 PM, Dirk Elzinga wrote:

> Hey.
>
> The definition I gave earlier for rhotics (lowered third formant) is
> the one favored by Ladefoged. However, another study (Lindau 1985)
> muddies the waters considerably. She lists the following sounds as
> rhotics (not an exhaustive list):
Indeed not. Those north Walians that use a uvular trill instead of the
'standard' apical trill have [R_0] for |rh| instead of [r_h]  :)
>
> [4]    tap/flap
> [r]    apical trill
> [r_0]  voiceless apical trill
> [r\]   approximant
> [R\]   uvular trill (IPA small cap "R")
> [R]    voiced uvular fricative (IPA inverted small cap "R")
> [X]    voiceless uvular fricative
This is more or less the list I would've given for 'rhotic consonants'.

> There are five properties which some of these sounds share:
>
> 1  pulse pattern (trill)
> 2  closure duration
> 3  presence of formants (sonorant)
> 4  presence of noise
> 5  distribution of spectral energy (place of articulation)
>
> Not all rhotics have all five properties, and there is no property
> which characterizes all rhotics.
Ah! What I sort of expected   :)

> Rather, the relation is one of "family
> resemblance":
>
> [4], [r], and [r\] are all apical/alveolar (5)
> [r], [r\], [R\], and [R] have formants present (3)
> [R\], [R], and [X] are all uvular (5)
> [R\], [r], and [r_0] are all trilled (1)
>
> etc.
Interesting analysis.

> So it seems that there is no concensus on what constitutes a rhotic.
That's become obvious, I think. Thanks for the added info. Maybe it's
time to let the matter rest now.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760