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

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 21:51:30 -0500, Sally Caves <scaves@...> wrote:

>It's also odd to me that
>retroflex would be a place of articulation.  It's a description of a
>movement made by the tongue.  Labial, dental, labio-dental, alveolar,
>post-alveolar, palatal, velar, and uvular all refer to structures inside
>the mouth, where retroflex, strictly speaking, refers to a muscular
>movement of the tongue.
It seems to me that your idea of a point of articulation is too static. Of
course, there are the different places in the mouth, the teeth, the alveols,
the palate, etc., but for a place of articulation requires not only a
specific place in the mouth (in spite of its name), but also a movable
articulator (in most cases different parts of the tongue).

On one hand, there are points of articulation that share the same
articulator but are formed in different parts of the mouth (e.g. the POA
with the tip of the tongue: dental, alveolar, postalveolar, retroflex); on
the other hand, there are points of articulation that share the same place
in the mouth but are formed with different articulators (e.g. the POA in the
palate: retroflex, palatal).

=================================

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:40:21 +0100, Andreas Johansson <andjo@...> wrote:

>I suppose it could have been treated like an
>modification in the same class as palatalized or aspirated, altho it would
>be faintly ridiculous with a such modification that basically only applies
>to one POA.
I understand that "retroflexization", that is, rhoticity is indeed a similar
modification like labialization, palatalization, velarization or
pharyngealization (but not as aspiration): All these are describe that
sounds formed in other points of articulation are accompanied by a
simultaneous second narrowing in another place of articulation. I could
imagine rhoticized consonants as well as there are pharyngealized ones.

gry@s:
j. 'mach' wust