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

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 think that most people understand the retroflex "r" as I do, as a
> retroflex approximant.
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.  In my
case it is certainly postalveolar, and any retroflexion of my tongue tip
is minimal.

> >Well, as with the other POAs, not necessarily touch, but at least point
> >at;
>
> That's an approximant, as I have come to understand it.
Right.  My point is that contact is not required to define the POA,
otherwise you couldn't have approximants at different POAs.

> >how much touching, if any, depends on whether it's an approximant,
> >fricative, or plosive.
So you can have a retroflex approximant, a retroflex fricative, or a
retroflex plosive.  The term "retroflex" in this context refers to what
parts of the mouth are used to make the sound - the tip of the tongue
and the palate, which approach each other to a degree not determined by
the term "retroflex".

> Yeah, but doesn't that require you to call the American "r" a retroflex
> approximant, not an alveolar approximant?
Only if I believe the American "r" to be retroflex.  The rest of my
message was basically my explanation of why I don't believe that to be
the case.  You'll note that I also admitted that I wasn't sure.

> 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.

> I'd also appreciate your including the rest of my comments.  I'll copy them
> in at the bottom, since I, too, would like others to respond to my
> questions.
I only include the comments to which I am replying, as a rule; if the
rest of the list wishes to reply to your comments, they can do so
directly, since your original message was sent to the list.  There's
little point in having multiple copies of the same text in different
messages in the archives, after all.

> >All of the places of articulation used in phonetic terminology also
> >imply something of the manner of articulation.
>
> Yes, understood.  But we don't call the uvular POA the gargling point.  Not
> even in Latin.
Feel free to criticize the terminology; that's not my fault.  But there
is definitely a point of articulation called "retroflex", for better or
worse.

> 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\].

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. :)
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. :)

> >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?)

> Are you British?
Nope.  100% Murkin, 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.


> >Input from others would be appreciated. :)
>
> Same here.  Here's the rest of my letter to Marcos,
... which you already sent to the whole list, not just to me,
so I'm not going to quote it yet again. :)

-Marcos

Replies