Re: Phonology: How to classify /l/ and /r/

Thanks, Cristophe, for a most informative reply.

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003, Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> Because they are two different phonemes to you. There are probably
> sounds that sound alike to you which I find extremely different.
Yes, well, I understand that. What I meant is that there has to be a
reason why the particular sounds [r] and [l] seem to be relatively
frequently merged into one phoneme rather than, say, [r] and [f]. Or [l]
and [j]. I understand that this has to do with the relationships between
different sounds, but I just do not understand what the relationship
between [r] and [l] is.

> > I am working on a phonology with four different consonant classes:
> > Fricatives, plosives, nasals and a fourth group including /r/, /l/,
> > /w/
> > and possibly /j/. Would that be a good idea? If so, what should it be
> > called?
>
> That's basically how Sanskrit classifies its consonants. As I said, the
> term "liquid" fits somewhat.
And what if I choose to divide the group into two, where /r/ and /l/ form
one group and /w/ and /j/ make up the other? Could I use "liquids" for the
first and "approximants" for the second?

  /Fredrik

Replies