Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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

From:Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 11, 2004, 12:34
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