Re: OT: Help reading Indic transliteration?
| From: | Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Friday, January 16, 2004, 21:49 |
|---|
En réponse à Mark J. Reed :
>On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:06:34PM +0100, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
> > I think you're confusing [r] and [4] (trills and flaps).
>
>well, no, actually, I was just mistyping. The original
>message that started all this was about [r\], which is neither a trill
>nor a flap but an approximant, and my normal everyday 'r' sound.
Well, since the original message was about Indic, I thought you were still
talking about *that* r, which is IIRC an alveolar trill. Sorry for the
misunderstanding.
Still, to me approximants are about the easiest sounds to make syllabic to
me, and I can't hear a length difference between [r\] and [r\=] when I
pronounce them. Of course, the longer you maintain an approximant, the more
likely it is gonna become syllabic, but length is not *necessary* for
syllabicity.
Christophe Grandsire.
http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr
You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.
Replies