Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ    Attic   

Re: Lateral/vowel coarticulation

From:Garth Wallace <gwalla@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2009, 7:41
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Eric Christopherson <rakko@...> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Roger Mills wrote: > >> Not sure what you're getting at here. Do you mean [l+V] or [V+l]? In Engl. >> [l+V] has no audible affect on the V, though the [l] varies ("bright/dental >> vs. dark/velarized") depending on front/back V. Could it be that you're >> velarizing your [l]s? > > No; I was talking about just trying to pronounce e.g. [l] at the same time > as I pronounce an approximation of [a]. I only do so when experimenting (not > while speaking English).
I can kind of do that with [a] and [@], but it doesn't seem to do anything to other vowels.
>> That might have an affect on the following V quality. In [V+l] there tend >> to be off-glides on the vowel, again depending on frontness/backness, and >> the [l] also varies. Engl. certainly has what might be called "C with >> lateral release" (plan, blade, glue, clay, fly,) > > I see. So it appears that in most cases when one sees something transcribed > [kl], it would be correct (in an even narrower transcription) to write > [k_ll]?
Not in my 'lect (from the San Francisco Bay Area, pretty close to American Broadcast Standard). The lateral in all of those cases is just a plain old alveolar lateral, and the lateral airflow doesn't begin until the tongue is in position. In fact, I think the unvoiced stops may be aspirated before /l/ for me. It's certainly not lateral release. The only thing like a lateral release in English that I can think of is an alveolar plosive onset followed by a lateral as syllable nucleus, as in "bottle" or "Don Cheadle". In the former, though, you also have a change in voicing.