Re: rhotic miscellany (was: Advanced English + Babel text)

Quoting "J. 'Mach' Wust" <j_mach_wust@...>:


> I also believe that this indetermination is the reason for the (already
> mentioned) IPA 'assymetry' in retroflex [r`] vs. alveolar [r, 4]: I guess
> that the pronunciation of [r`] is as undetermined as the one of [r] (if not
> opposed to [4]), and that there are no languages that oppose a retroflex
> trill to a retroflex tap.
Well, sórtá. (That's a really strong case of Dutch emphasis!)

The asymetry I refered to isn't found in the IPA, but in the X-SAMPA, where
putting an '`' after a sign for a alveolar sound creates the notation for the
corresponding retroflex sound, _except_ for 'r', for which the diacritic also
changes MoA to flap/tap. This is of course because [r`] is more suggestive than
is [4`], and since X-SAMPA aims to ASCIIfy the IPA, it only needs for the
tap/flap, not the trills. That the IPA in turn chose to have the signs it has
is, no doubt, due to the lack of a contrast as you say, but it isn't asymetric.

                                    Andreas