|From:||Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, March 22, 2006, 4:04|
On 22/03/06, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> wrote:
> On 3/21/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <tristan@...> wrote:
> > If it was me, I'd put the aspiration last: Aspiration is defined as
> > delayed onset of voicing, so that the important part of the aspiration
> > of t_j_h will occur after the palatised stop has been released. I'm
> > surprised you say the aspiration occurs before any audible palatised
> > sound does---but maybe you're thinking of the voicelessness?
> No, I was thinking that the palatalization of a palatalized stop is
> mostly audible in the onset of the following vowel, which comes after
> the aspiration.
That sounds to me more like a [t_hj] then, I would've thought, rather
than a [t_j_h].
> > When a sound is velarised, it basically has a [M] (open back unrounded
> > vowel)
> Don't you mean "close back unrounded vowel"? [M] is unrounded [u],
> right? That's as close as it gets.
Yeah, sorry, and thanks :)
> > superimposed, much like a labio-velarised sound has a [u]
> > superimposed, or a palatised sound has a [i] superimposed
> I hadn't thought of those that way, but in terms of [w] and [j]. The
> vowels do make sense, though, and that helps a lot. Thanks!
> > Perhaps you or people around you sometimes vocalise your/their /l/'s:
> > if so, you'll notice you get a sound somewhat like /o/ or /u/, but
> > (frequently) without the labialisation.
> [l=] still sounds pretty distinct from  or [M], but I guess there's
> a similarity there.
Sorry, you've misunderstood me. A vocalised consonant isn't the same
as a syllabic consonant. A syllabic consonant is when a consonant acts
as a syllabic nucleus such, like [l=]. A vocalised consonant is when a
consonant is out-right replaced by an (often non-syllabic) vowel. When
the English spoken in England first became non-rhotic, /r/ was
vocalised, no longer [r\] or [r\=] but more like [@_^] (non-syllabic
schwa) and [@]. Similarly with vocalised /l/ as happens most
stereotypically in London English, but also other Englishes (and
languages!) round the world, the  (or [5=]) is replaced by
something like [M\], [7_^] (or [M]). (Vocalised /l/ is frequently
[w]~[u] as well.)
> > Anyway, so what I'm saying is the back of your tongue will be in a
> > similar position as it is for a [u] (a cardinal one---many English
> > dialects have a somewhat/rather/very fronted /u:/), but without the
> > lip-rounding.
> Yeah, I have no trouble pronouncing [M] and . ([M] is the Japanese
> /u/, in particular. Also where I get to practice my [P]s..)
Japanese /u/ has a different sort of liprounding to normal [u], but it
> > (Note that English /l/ are (velarised) alveolar lateral approximates,
> > not dental ones.)
> Yeah, point. Technically the bit I read about English not having the
> dental version is correct, but still misleading. Do any languages
> have a phonemic distinction between dental and alveolar or
> postalveolar POA outside of the fricative series?
Yuppers! Many Australian Aboriginal languages distinguish between all
three of dental, alveolar and postalveolar POAs (as stops), and most
of them also don't have any fricatives---at all. The three series are
redundantly distinguished the part of the tongue that touches the roof
tho: the dental are laminal, the alveolar are apical and the
postalveolar are retroflex.
> > Also, [l_e] could represent a pharyngealised [l] (used frex in the
> > Arabic pronunciation of the word "Allah"); if the difference is
> > relevant, you can spell it as [l_G], which is in IPA a superscripted
> > gamma. It also looks nicer than an overlaid tilde.
> [G] is one place I prefer the CXS to real IPA. The IPA versions of
>  and [G] are far too similar for my taste, especially in
> handwritten notes.
I agree, though in handwritten notes I find 6 and @ a *lot* harder to