Re: laterals (was: Pharingials, /l/ vs. /r/ in Southeast Asia)

John Cowan wrote:

>Racsko Tamas scripsit:
>
>
>
>>  But who says that English 'sy' in <Sue> 'syoo' and 'sh' in <shoe> 'shoo'
>>can't both be an [S] for an Indonesian, or an [s] for a Finn [not for an
>>Anglophone, of course]?
>>
>>
>
>AFAIK with /sj/ all dialects have either dropped the palatalization (as
>with "Sue" /su/) or have gone all the way to /S/, as with "issue" /ISu/).
>Nobody says /sju/ or /Isju/ any more.
>
>In the case of /rj/, palatalization has been lost everywhere:  "true" is
>/tr\u/.
>
But <tr> is  tSr in some accents like mine.  I have train /tSr\EIn/,
try  /tSr\aI/,  so  true  is  /tSr\u:/,  also my <dr>:  drain /dZr\EIn/,
dry /dZr\aI/, drew /dZr\u:/   so even if palatisation has been lost it
didn't prevent fricativisation. With other consonants <gr> <cr> <thr>
etc. palatisation has been lost


>
>The case of /tj/, /dj/, /nj/, and I think /lj/ is interesting, as the
>split is not lexical but dialectal: "tune" became /tun/ in North America,
>stayed /tjun/, in conservative British speech, and moved to /tSun/
>in advanced British dialects and Australian.  Similarly with d:dj:dZ
>and n:nj:J.
>
>
> John Cowan <jcowan@...>
>
/lj/ has also lost its palatisation in British speech except for
conservative speech.

David Barrow

Reply