Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: everyone's messages

From:Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>
Date:Saturday, July 7, 2001, 21:05
En réponse à Samuel Rivier <samuelriv@...>:

> > the french r is normally depicted as "R" in IPA > transcriptions, so I stick with it. When the r is next > to a voiced consonant ie Grande, bavarde, etc, and it > is almost always unvoiced. As I said, I grew up around > these sounds and because I was raised a native English > speaker, I always pronounced the /R/ (or /X/) as /h/ > or a weak /x/. >
Do you mean a native *French* speaker? English doesn't have an uvular 'r'. Well, if you're French, then I'm not alone anymore on that list. Hooray!!! :) But as for French /R/, you're right to voice it whenever possible, because it's inherently voiced (it's a voiced uvular approximant, not a fricative). French has a big constraint that all liquids and nasals (l, r, m and n) should be voiced. Only when near a voiceless consonnant are they devoiced by assimilation (and even then, voice reappears quite fast. I pronounce prendre /pRa~dR/ quite like [pX_Ra~dR], that's to say that the first /R/ begins unvoiced, but becomes voiced very fast, probably with the help of the following vowel. Only in the hypothetic situation of an /R/ surrounded with two voiceless consonnants would it be pronounced /X/, but even then a native French speaker would stick a /@/ somewhere and voice would reappear soon). To be sure that French /R/ is inherently voiced, try to pronounce it isolated (that's to say syllabic. It's not difficult to make syllabic continuants in isolation. I can manage even /s=/ :) ). It should appear voiced then, just like any liquid or approximant in French. To tell you the truth, I can barely pronounce a voiceless uvular approximant (or fricative). Also, I tend to hear the Southern Dutch 'g' (a voiced velar fricative) as a French 'r', while I never mistake my 'r' with the voiceless velar fricative (Spanish 'j'). Should be evidence enough that French 'r' is inherently voiced.
> > All planets that spin have magnetic fields. Thus I > think that we can induce that all that which would be > defined as a planet has a magnetic field. Venus barely > has one because its spin is so slow, but it exists > nonetheless. >
Absolutely not. Having a spin is not enough to have a magnetic field. You need also at least a metallic core IIRC, plus a few other conditions. Christophe.