Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Javier BF <uaxuctum@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 2:47
>> Another pair of flaws to add to the heap. > >Yes, but are there any languages that make a *phonemic* distinction >between "lateral stop" and [t]? If so, then it is a flaw. Otherwise, >however, it's not really a flaw, as a design principle in the IPA is >only distinguishing sounds that are contrasted in at least some >languages. If, on the other hand, they only occur in the affricate >[tK], then there's no need to make a special character, *especially* if >the "normal" [t] does not occur.
Then it's a flaw of the design principle of the IPA alphabet, because that alphabet is used not only for phonemic transcriptions, but also and very frequently for phonetic transcriptions that are meant to tell the reader how a sound actually sounds and not just what phoneme it belongs to in a certain language. Besides, what are the raising and lowering diacritics doing in the IPA chart, then? Is there a language that contrasts e.g. a raised [e] with a lowered [e] and with [E], so that the raised and the lowered ones cannot be transcribed phonemically as /e/ and /E/? What about [r\] and [l\], is there a language where all the repertoire of rhotics for which the IPA provides a symbol are contrasted? Why having symbols for the alveolopalatal fricatives at all, is there a language where those contrast with palatalized [S] and [Z]? What about the symbol for simultaneous h and sh, [x\], is there a language where it contrasts with [S]? Swedish contrast [x\] with [s\] and sometimes with [s`], but that could be rendered phonemically simply as /S/ vs. /s\/ vs. /s`/, or as /S/ vs. /S_j/ vs. /s`/ leaving aside the symbol [s\] too. [x\] is "phonemically superfluous" because its only purpose is to show that at the _phonetic_ level the "hsh" doesn't sound the same as a "sh" like that of English.
>Actually, from hearing those Haida sounds, I suspect what you mean by >"lateral stop" is "stop with *lateral release*", which is indicated in >the IPA by a superscript l.
All laterals consist of a blocking of the central area of the mouth (by means of raising the central part of the tongue) while the airstream is released laterally (by means of creating an opening at the side(s) of the tongue). What distinguishes a lateral approximant from a lateral fricative (and from a lateral stop and a lateral affricate) is the degree of _lateral_ closure, not the degree of _central_ closure. If there is no central blocking of the airstream during the production of the lateral sound, be it at the alveolar, palatal, velar or uvular area, and thus the air is allowed to flow in any way (plosively, fricatively, approximantly or affricately) through the central part of the mouth as well as through the lateral part, the sound is no longer a true lateral, but things like a "stop with lateral release" (which is not the same as a lateral stop).
>> Sorry, that was an error of mine, because >> the normal laterals (I mean, the usual ones) are of >> course the approximant ones; unlike the normal rhotics >> which are plosive > >Are you counting taps/trills as "plosive"? Because that's what most >rhotics are. And AFAIK, those aren't normally counted as >plosives/stops.
Most taps/flaps and trills _are_ plosive, whether they are 'counted' as "plosives" or not. Castilian Spanish -rr- is nothing but a quick succession of alveolar d's, that is, a quick succession of alveolar stops. The alveolar tap is usually a quick alveolar stop, though not unusually it is realized as a quick fricative or even as a quick approximant. But the word "plosive" is usually applied merely to non-rhotic plosives, that is, to sounds where the stop is neither very quick as in a tap/flap nor quickly repeated in a row like in a trill (which is simply a row of taps), and thus where the feeling of 'vibration' or 'trembling' is not produced. The word "trill" is also usually applied merely to the plosive kind of multiple-pulse rhotics, but here I'll broaden its meaning to include any multiple-pulse rhotic be it plosive or not. A non-plosive 'trill' is then e.g. Czech r^, which is an alveolopalatal fricative-trill (or rhoticized fricative if you like). English r is usually an apico-postalveolar approximant-flap, but when syllable final in rhotic dialects, the rhotacism that it causes to the vowel with which it usually merges phonetically (there isn't such a long path from an approximant to a vowel) is usually of the multiple-pulse kind. Cheers, Javier

Replies

John Cowan <cowan@...>
Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>
Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>