Re: Need some help with terms: was "rhotic miscellany"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Caves" <scaves@...>
To: "Constructed Languages List" <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: Need some help with terms: was "rhotic miscellany"



 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>


> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:51:30PM -0500, Sally Caves wrote:
>> >Sally> Alright, I'm doubly confused, Marcos.
>> >
>> >I seem to have that effect not infrequently. :\
>>
>> Perhaps because you don't clarify your terms well?
>
> Whoa.  I apologize if I'm misinterpreting here, Sally, but the tone of
> your reply seems a bit hostile.  I was only trying to answer your
> questions, to the best of my ability.  I apparently succeeded only in
> confusing you, for which I apologize; but there's no need to throw my
> self-deprecation back in my face like that.
 I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be hostile, and I apologize if I offended you.
I have always found you to be very clear, so I was wondering aloud what you
meant by that. I was referring not to your explanations in general but only
to the fact that I had NO IDEA that we were on completely different
wavelengths here: you thinking of a place of articulation, and me thinking
of a manner.  That's where I thought you were unclear in your responses.  It
took me a long time to sort out what it was I was disagreeing with in you,
and I was erasing and rewriting a lot, and that should have been edited.

>> If by a "retroflex POA" linguists mean the
>> post-alveolar-palatal, then I would prefer that term.
>
> As I understand it, "retroflex" as a POA refers to a point in between
> "postalveolar" (touched or approached by the tip of the tongue with no
> retroflexion) and "palatal" (touched or approached by the blade of the
> tongue, not the tip).   But as Ray pointed out, it is also possible to
> use "retroflex" as a modifier on sounds made with the tip of the tongue
> at other locations, although doing so can be a bit confusing.
 Yes.  I agree.

>> As I said, retroflex approximant, then.
>
> And as I said, you may be right.  I originally objected to this term
> because:
> 1) I do not recall having heard the American R described that way before.
>
> 2) Experimentation with my own pronunciation seemed to bear out my
>   belief that my R is not retroflex
>
> 3) An admittedly cursor search into past messages on the list verified
>   my recollection that the usual representation for the R of American
>   English is [r\].
 Which I found to have conflicting interpretations.

> It is true that [r\] would usually be described as a "dental"
> approximant, but in actuality it covers all three of dental, alveolar,
> and postalveolar; there are simply no separate symbols for that
> distinction in IPA or CXS.
>
>> Yes, that *is* a large source of confusion, Marcos, because you are
>> applying
>> your interpretation to a well-known term: the American retroflex r.
>
> Okay, now you're coming off as hostile again.  I'm sorry, but no matter
> how many times you assert that "American retroflex r" is a well-known
> term, I
> am not going to suddenly remember hearing it and decide you're right. :)
 Fair enough, and I apologize again if I seemed hostile. I should have said
"you seem to be applying."  Andreas has recently called this the sublaminal,
a term I'm somewhat familiar with.  But maybe I'm just used to older
textbooks, Marcos.  It could be a difference in education and resources.
And there needs to be a better and more specific symbol for the American r
in IPA and
 CXS.  Maybe something fruitful will come out of this discussion.

> I'm not saying it's not well-known, but it's not well-known to me, and
> appeal to authority isn't going to convince me that I'm pronouncing my R
> differently from the way I feel myself pronouncing it. :)
 If we lived around the corner it would help to hear you say it, and see if
there is a difference in the way we pronounce it.  But we don't.

>> >So I am no longer certain that my R is not, in fact, retroflex.
>
> (That'd be the part where I admitted I might be wrong.  See?)
 What is it that you are objecting to, Marcos?  That I seem to be hostile,
or that my response has caused you to doubt your assertions?  Perhaps I'm
just being challenging.  We can do that, right, with no hard feelings?

>> Are you British?
>
> Nope.  100% Murkin, I'm afraid.
 Yeah, me too, I'm afraid.

>> I find the term "retroflex r" or "retroflex approximant" to be a
>> convenient
>> and perfectly logical description of the American "r" that distinguishes
>> it
>> from other forms of "r." Since many other languages, as announced on this
>> list, have a retroflex tap, then I prefer "retroflex approximant."
>
> The American R is quite clearly an approximant of some sort; of that
> there is no question.  I don't know if it differs in POA from the
> British approximant (of course, British also has an allophone that is a
> tap rather than an approximant).  All I know is that it don't feel
> retroflex.
 Then why does it feel that way to me?  I think it's because of the POA/MOA
disagreement we're having.  See, I'm using it to mean, as Andreas put it,
the apical retroflex, maybe.  What this tells me is that you and I have a
 subtle difference in the way we pronounce (or perceive) "r."  Maybe mine is
more exaggerated.  Or maybe it just means that we differ in this use of a
retroflex.

 And as for repeating my comments, I put in brackets where I have been
challenged to change my own understanding of "retroflex."  I noted that Ray
 calls r\ the dental-alveolar approximant, but that may be because the
British don't actually pronounce "car" as /ka/ but do sense an approximant
movement of the tongue towards the alveola, especially intervocalically.
That was a mouth opener for me.  I hear it as /ka/ but I don't feel what is
happening in the speaking British  mouth.  Or in that of my fellow Americans
for that matter.

 That sounded a little off-color, but there it is. :)

 Sally

Reply