Re: rhotics

taliesin the storyteller wrote:
> * R A Brown said on 2007-07-06 11:07:06 +0200
>
>>According to the IPA chart, a velar trill is not a possible
>>sound (the square is not left empty, it is clearly blacked
>>out). So what are the 'many raspy replacements'?
>
>
> Any rhotic that is not an alveolar trill, further back than the
> alveoli and not a tap/flap. That is: /x/, /G/, /X/, /R/, /X\/,
> /?\/, /R\/ and maybe also /r\'/. Or in UTF8: xɣχʁħʕʀɻ.
I make that six fricatives (velar, uvular & pharyngeal, both voiced &
unvoiced), the uvular trill and maybe also the retroflex approximant.

> Now maybe it's time to start the big debate about what, really,
> does it mean that something is rhotic? :)
I note the smiley. Yes, this has been aired many a time (probably in
some people's opinion ad_nauseam) on this list as a quick look in the
archives will show.

The list of sounds you give for the most part has post-palatal friction
in common, which IMO can fairly be described as a "raspy replacement." I
guess the glottal fricatives are not included as, indeed, these are far
less raspy and, as we know from the many examples in natlangs, they have
a distinct tendency to fall silent.

The uvular trill is close enough to the the uvular fricatives to be
regarded, I think, as a 'special case of raspiness'   :)

The only sound above which, surely, lacks raspiness is the retroflex
approximant. I know retroflex consonants are sometimes called rhotic,
but this seems to me a different sort of rhoticity to 'many raspy
replacements' of the putative velar trill    ;)

But it seems I was not the only one a bit puzzled by your original
definition, since:
----------------

taliesin the storyteller wrote:
 > * John Vertical said on 2007-07-06 09:03:14 +0200
[snip]

 >>If I have the description of this sound right (the proper term
 >>is "velopharyngeal trill" BTW - or "velarized uvular trill")
 >
 > That'd be a wrong guess :)

At least John made a guess, unlike me   :)

 >>I'd actually prefer to use a digraph.
 >
 > It *is* a double sound, yes.

I thought it was, but as no-one suggested this, I was not entirely sure.
As it is a double sound, I must agree with John: I would prefer a digraph.

 > The first part varies with dialect,
 > the second part does not, though there are people that *do*
 > replace the entire kaboodle with a velarized/pharyngealized
 > trill but that's *most* improper and foreign.

Presumably a velarized or pharyngealized apical trill?

But even so, if the single sound (whatever it is) is "improper and
foreign", then it seems to me to present a greater case for a digraph or
at least a ligature.

--
Ray
==================================
ray@carolandray.plus.com
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
There's none too old to learn.
[WELSH PROVERB]

Reply