Re: Rhoticity

> I've been wondering lately just what rhoticity is. I know certain
sounds are
> classified as rhotic, but they don't seem to have anything in common to
me,
> other than that they are often represented by <r> in Latin orthography.
In some ways, that *is* the only criterion.  The other property is that
all rhotic sounds sound similar to speakers of various languages.
However, that acoustic property is almost impossible to define in terms
of articulation, which is why rhoticity is such a slippery subject.  But
here's my understanding of the matter.  Those that know better (read:
Dirk Elzinga) may correct me.

> What *is* rhoticity?
The property of being rhotic ;-).  Really, I can't answer this question
without answering the others.  However, in historical linguistics
"rhoticity" is used to refer to any sound change that produces a rhotic
sound, especially the change *s > r.

> What makes a consonant rhotic?
Generally, all trills or flaps are rhotic, and in many cases rhoticity
can be reduced to trilling.  However, anterior approximants (retroflex,
alveolar, dental) are also considered rhotic because they share acoustic
properties with the trills.  In technical terms, I *think* that this
acoustic value is associated with a particular frequency of the third
formant, though I might be wrong.

> What characterizes a rhotic vowel?
A vowel that has simultaneous rhotic construction, or that third-formant
value that I mentioned.

> Is there really a relation between rhoticity and retroflexion?
Not necessarily.  Retroflexion is only one of the ways to create a rhotic
sound.

> What are some known kinds of sound changes that occur with rhotics
(i.e.
> what types of sounds become rhotic, and what types of sounds come
> from rhotics)?
Well, I already mentioned *s > r, which occurs in Latin and the ancient
Germanic languages, as well as others, I'm sure.  If the language does
not have both a rhotic and a lateral, those classes of sounds may switch
back and forth.  In many languages, like (I'm pretty sure) Korean, a
rhotic and a lateral are allophones of the same phoneme.  The voiced
uvular fricative is virtually identical to the uvular trill, which is a
rhotic.  And it's not impossible for the change *n > r to occur, a change
which occurred in the history of my conlang.


Jesse S. Bangs     Pelíran
jaspax@ juno.com
"There is enough light for those that desire only to see, and enough
darkness for those of a contrary disposition."  --Blaise Pascal

Replies