Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Ant: Palatovelars: RTR, ATR, Uvulurized, Pharyngealized

From:tomhchappell <tomhchappell@...>
Date:Sunday, June 5, 2005, 23:38
Hi, John, and others.  Thanks for writing.

I have a question.

--- In, John Vertical <johnvertical@H...>
> wrote: > [snip] > [_q]?? I've understood that > "retracted tongue root" = "uvularized", > {snip]
(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 the pharynx. "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