Ant: Palatovelars: RTR, ATR, Uvulurized, Pharyngealized
|Date:||Sunday, June 5, 2005, 23:38|
Hi, John, and others. Thanks for writing.
I have a question.
--- In email@example.com, John Vertical <johnvertical@H...>
> [_q]?? I've understood that
> "retracted tongue root" = "uvularized",
(Correct _me_, too, if _I'm_ wrong; and thank you.)
As I thought I understood it, "uvularize" involves the _back_ of the
tongue (as the mobile articulator) , not the _root_. (Where the
parts of the tongue run, very roughly and leaving out a lot of
detail, "front", "center", "back", "root".) The part of the tongue
referred to as "root" cannot touch the uvula, but the part referred
to as "back" can touch either the uvula or the velum -- as I thought
I understood it.
The stabile articulator that goes with the tongue _root_ is the
_pharynx_, as I thought I understood it.
The trouble with just saying "pharyngealization" is, that it gets
across the idea of "do something with the pharynx", but doesn't tell
whether it should be constricted or widened.
"Retracted tongue root" (RTR) means to narrow the pharynx by pulling
back the root of the tongue closer to the back of the
pharynx; "advanced tongue root" (ATR) means to widen the pharynx by
pushing the root of the tongue the other way, away from the back of
"Uvularize", OTOH, as I thought I understood it, meant to move the
part of the tongue closest to the uvula (namely the _back_ of the
tongue) closer to it.
Obviously, "velarize" and "uvularize" could easily evolve into each
other (or at least I used to think it was obvious to me); and by the
same token I thought "RTR" and "uvularize" could easily evolve into
each other (so I thought).
I can't imagine any language that has "uvularize" would also have
either of the other two ("RTR" and "velarize") phonemically distinct
from it. (In fact I think the IPA handbook says there isn't any
such language; I'm going from memory here, I left my IPA handbook in
another state more than two weeks ago.) Does anyone know of a
NatLang that has all three of "RTR", "uvularize", and "velarize",
phonemically distinct from each other?
I conjecture that in any natural language that has
both "uvularization" and "pharyngealization", (they being
phonemically distinguished from each other in that language),
the "pharyngealization" in question is always and only "Advance
Tongue Root", never RTR. Does anyone know of a counter-example?
Does anyone know of "something approaching a 'proof'"?
Thanks for any and all responses, especially answers.
Tom H.C. in OK