Re: phonetic

On Monday, January 3, 2005, at 09:55 , bob thornton wrote:

> --- # 1 <salut_vous_autre@...> wrote:
[snip]
>> Can all the plosive be aspirated?
>
> As far as I know, yes.
They certainly can.

>>
>> I know that in english, [p], [t], and [k] are
>> aspirated but maybe the
>> retroflex and the labio-dental can also
Yes. Why not?

>> And there voiced equivalent? can a voiced plosive be
>> aspirated?
>
> Yes.
Yes - they are common in the Indic languages.

>
>>
>> Are the others consonant? I think an aspirated
>> fricative may be possible but
>> I'm not sure about nasals and far less about
>> approximants and trills
>>
>
> This I have no idea about.
Yes, they can. The Welsh }rh}, for example, is the apical trill pronounced
_simultaneously_ with [h]. Some class it as unvoiced trill. It has been
debated several times on this list whether the main feature is devoicing &
the aspiration is a secondary feature or whether the aspiration is primary
and devoicing secondary. In any event, the sound is aspirated.

The other approximants and nasals can be similarly aspirated. It would
seem that [l_h] tends to become a fricatve [K], but English |wh| is
pronounced [w_h] or [w_0] occurs in many English dialects particularly, it
seems, in north America and in Scotland. This has been discussed many
times on this list.

Not so long ago we had a thread about aspirated nasals. It seems they
occur in Icelandic & Burmese.

>
>> I imagine that if a glottal plosive is aspirated
>> it's a glottal affricate..
>
> That would make sense. Sorta.
Y.R. Chao describes the sound as a 'cough'   :)

It occurs in the Yunnan dialect of Chinese, corresponding to Mandarin [k_h]

>> Is there a difference, in diacritics of the IPA,
>> between a labialized
>> consonant and a consonant followed by a [w]?
Yes. The initial sound of English 'coop' /kup/ is slightly labialized, but
there is no following [w]. If a consonant is labialized it is pronounced
with lip-rounding. Many people consider that Latin |qu| was labialized
[k_w] rather than the [kw] sound that is conventionally given when we
pronounce Latin.

>> Same thing for palatalized, velarized,
>> pharyngealized?
Most certainly.

>> And also for those with a nasal or lateral release,
>> is there a difference
>> between those and these followed by a [n] or a [l]
Yes - but I'll leave it to those with more phonetic expertise to explain.

>>
>> When a phonetic symbol has a ~ under it, it makes
>> that it is "creaky voiced"
>> but what does it means?
>
> No idea how to explain this... you say it as if you
> have laryngitis, I guess. Like you've something caught
> in your throat.
In fact these sounds are often described as 'laryngealized'. The sounds
are produced by a slow vibration of only one end of the vocal chords.
Hausa distinguishes between creaky (laryngealized) plosives and non-creaky
plosives.

>> Same thing when there's a ®
The registered trade mark symbol??

>> under the symbol wich
>> means it is "breathy
>> voiced", what does it means?
>
> ...You say it with audible breath?
Presumably this is meant to be the double-dot subscript. It is a vocal
effect produced by allowing a great deal of air to pass through a slightly
opened glottis. The effect is sometimes called a _murmur_. Gujarati
contrasts breathy and non-breathy vowels.

>>
>> Also, what means rhoticity indicated with a little
>> hook?
>
> An "r" sound.
...the north American anglophone "r" after vowels. You hear it in Canadian
& US pronounciations of words like _far_, _core_, _bird_ etc. Many
varieties of English do not have this sound.

[snip]

>>
>> Why epiglotal consonants do not have their own
>> column on the consonant board
Presumably because they occur so infrequently.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com
===============================================
Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
which is not so much a twilight of the gods
as of the reason."      [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]

Reply