|From:||R A Brown <ray@...>|
|Date:||Thursday, December 13, 2007, 17:51|
Benct Philip Jonsson wrote:
> Paul Roser skrev:[snip]
> > When I was learning German many years ago my pronunciation
> > of <ch> was a very scrapy uvular fricative, verging on a
> > voiceless uvular trill - would that be acceptable in
> > Swedish, or would it attract odd looks?[snip]
> > (And if any of our resident Welsh speakers are reading
> > this, would it be acceptable for Welsh <ch>?
No - Welsh _ch_ is [X]. But anglophones with Welsh as L2 often use [x].
> And what is
> > the distinction between that and the voiceless uvular
> > trill realization of <rh> in Northern Wales?)
> I don't *know*, but probably the _ch_ is untrilled.
Indeed it is.
Whereas _rh_ both north and south is trilled /r/ with concomitant
aspiration (we've discussed several times before on this list whether
this is a question of devoicing the /r/ with aspiration being secondary
or of aspirating the /r/ with devoicing being secondary. I think the
general consensus at the end of these repeated threads has been that
it's basically the same thing :)
Usually AFAIK in both parts of Wales the /r/ is trilled apically, but in
some areas in north Wales the uvular trill is indeed used. Sure, a
uvular trill with aspiration will be a voiceless, aspirated uvular
_trill_ - it will, however, not be an untrilled [X].
Entia non sunt multiplicanda