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

Quoting Javier BF <uaxuctum@...>:


> Why having symbols for the alveolopalatal
> fricatives at all, is there a language where those
> contrast with palatalized [S] and [Z]?
Polish, IIRC.

> What about
> the symbol for simultaneous h and sh, [x\], is
> there a language where it contrasts with [S]?
> Swedish contrast [x\] with [s\]
Well, some dinosaurs do. [x\] is very rare.

> 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.
The traditional phonematization is /S/ vs /C/ vs /rs/. I'd rather like to
write that /x/ vs /S/ vs /rs/ because my pronunciation is [x] vs [S] vs [s`],
but the point is that there's little reason to analyze [s`] as monophonemic,
and I've never seen a book doing that. Similarly, I've never ever seen /x\/ in
phonemic rendering, not even in books that pretend that [x\] is the normal
pronunciation of that sound.

There may, however, be some dialect or other that has [x\] for /S/ and [S]
for /C/. Wouldn't surprise me unduly.

> [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.
What I find odd is that it didn't get treated like doubly articulated stops.

> >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).
Yes ...

> 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.
Yes ...

> 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).
A stop sans complete closure ought to be impossible. Are you saying a stop
with lateral release is a stop that's simultaneously released centrally and
laterally? Besides that sounding pretty hard to pull off, it probably could
use some terminological reform, if so.

Additionally, you were denying that [tK] was a true lateral affricate. Since
at least what I understand it to mean has central closure thru-out, I still
don't understand why.

I _can_ produce a [t] with a following [K] with a break of central closure in
between, but integrating that into fluent speech seems like a very tall order.
I normally maintain central closure thru English and Swedish sequences
like /lt/ and /tl/, even when they've got a word break in them.

                                                      Andreas