Re: CHAT: rhotic retroflexion (was: CHAT: iron worlds (etc..

Eric Christopherson wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 04:12:30PM -0400, Robert Hailman wrote:
> > Raymond Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > At 4:51 pm -0500 15/5/01, Eric Christopherson wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > >So retroflexion is the same as rhoticity?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I quote from J.C. Wells, University of London, "Computer-coding the IPA: a
> > > proposed extension of SAMPA".  In proposing that retroflex consonants
> > > (shown in IPA by dental/alveolars with rightward tails) be written [t`],
> > > [d`], [s`], [z`] etc, he adds:
> > >
> > > "No ambiguity arises through this: the IPA rhoticity hook applies to
> > > symbols for vowels, the retroflexion tail to consonants.  In any case,
> > > r-coloured ('rhotic') vowels are sometimes themselves termed retroflex."
> > >
> > > Indeed, they are.  I was familiar with the term long before I met the term
> > > 'rhotic', so I find it difficult to break the habit  :)
> >
> > I've always had a problem with this, because as I understand the term
> > "retroflex", neither my /r/ nor any rhotic vowels are retroflex. Maybe
> > my definitio is just all askew...
>
> >From what I've read of North American /r/, it's considered only slightly
> retroflex, FWIW. I don't notice my r-colored vowels being farther back
> either, but I'm not a phonetician.
Well, my /r/ may be just *very* slightly retroflex, I don't notice it.
I've always heard that American (presumable meaning US) /r/ is
retroflex, I always thought "Hmm. I guess Canadian /r/ isn't retroflex."
It could just be slightly retroflex. Maybe.

--
Robert