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

On Sunday, November 7, 2004, at 03:51 , Mark J. Reed wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:51:30PM -0500, Sally Caves wrote:
[snip]
>> 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).
Yes, I am not sure what postalveolar-palatal would actually mean. Would it
be concerned with the tip of the tongue or the front part of the blade? I
don't know.

But whatever one likes, the IPA usage of 'retroflex' does refer to a point
of articulation with retroflex sounds produced in several different
manners of articulation, namely: plosive, nasal, fricative, flap or tap
(but not trill), approximant, lateral approximant, ejective stop.

That last one sounds interesting. I wonder what language has it?

Thinks: if there's a retroflex lateral approximant - and there is in some
Indic languages - why ain't there any retroflex lateral fricatives? (Umm -
a bit difficult to pronounce).

>  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.
It can indeed; and IMO it would be preferable not to use 'retroflex' this
way for that very reason. As these sounds are said to be 'rhotic' it would
be better IMO to use the term 'rhoticized'. But I suspect it is too much
to expect people to distinguish between 'rhotacized' and 'rhoticized'   :)

> [snip]
>> 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
My British R has always been a approximant - so was the R of those I grew
up with. It's an alveolar approximant. I must say, I've never noticed any
great difference between my R and that of Americans I've met (quite a few
of them).

> (of course, British also has an allophone that is a
> tap rather than an approximant).
So texts books say - but I have rarely met people with that allophone.
=====================================================

On Sunday, November 7, 2004, at 05:50 , Steg Belsky wrote:

> On Nov 7, 2004, at 5:51 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote:
[snip]
>> Well, I don't know and can't speak to what "most people" understand in
>> this regard.  All I know is that we have historically used [r\] for the
>> American R on this list, and [r\] can in CXS refer to either a dental,
>> alveolar, or postalveolar approximant, but not a retroflex one.
It is true that [r\] is the dental/alveolar/postalveolar approximant, that
the RP Brit /r/.

[snip]

>
> I remember when it was commonly [r\`].
Yep - that's certainly the CXS for the retroflex approximant.

> I'm pretty sure that [r\] is
> just being used as a shorter, easier-to-type abbreviation.
Maybe, but.....................
============================================
On Sunday, November 7, 2004, at 06:24 , John Cowan wrote:

> Sally Caves scripsit:
[snip]
>> Retroflectere: "to bend back."  The tongue pulls back and the tip curls
>> up
>> towards the roof of the mouth.  If we stick strictly to the meaning of
>> the
>> term itself, then I indeed do pronounce my "r"s in English
>> retroflexively,
>> and so, I imagine, do millions of other Americans.
>
> But others don't.  I, for example, pronounce "r" with alveolopalatal
> articulation:
.....which I guess will not sound so very different fom my alveolar
approximant  :)

In any case, I find it difficult to believe that there would no variation
at all over such a vast area as the USA. I know dialect variation, for
various historic reasons, on our little island is higher than in the 50
states. In Britain itself, there is considerable variety in the
pronunciation of /r/ (I think examples of all rhotic approximants, taps
and trills can be found somewhere or other); I would not expect such great
variety in the US, but there must surely be some variation, as John is
pointing out.

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