> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 06:32:27 +0000
> From: Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
> Subject: Re: Rhotics (was: Pharingials, /l/ vs. /r/ in Southeast Asia)
>
> On Sunday, February 8, 2004, at 06:09 PM, Mangiat wrote:
>
> >> From: Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
> >> Subject: Rhotics (was: Pharingials, /l/ vs. /r/ in Southeast Asia)
> >>
> >> Exactly! However, retroflex is a more well defined term IME. For
> >> example,
> >> I've never come across the French uvular trill, uvular voiced
fricative
> > &
> >> uvular approximant pronunciations of /r/ described as 'retroflex', tho
> >> they have been (and are) called 'rhotics'. Indeed, I'm finding it
> >> difficult to see (or hear) what the trilled [r] of Italian & Welsh has
in
> >> common with the uvular approximant common in modern northern French,
> >> other
> >> than that both are voiceless.
> >
> > Voiceless?
>
> OOPS!! Probably the worst typo I've made on the list {deep blush}
>
> I mean *VOICED*
>
> Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
No need... What baffled me is that I read somewhere that French /r/ actually
can in some environments be devoiced...Or am I wrong?
Luca
>
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
> ray.brown@freeuk.com (home)
> raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk (work)
> ===============================================
> "A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
> interfere with language." J.G. Hamann, 1760
>***********