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, 17:04
>> Why having symbols for the alveolopalatal >> fricatives at all, is there a language where those >> contrast with palatalized [S] and [Z]? > >Polish, IIRC.
No, I said with _palatalized_ [S] and [Z]; that is, a contrast between [s\] and [S_j] and between [z\] and [Z_j], so as to justify having [s\] and [z\] as individual symbols. In all the languages I'm aware of, [s\] and [z\] do not contrast with [S_j] and [Z_j].
>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
>but the point is that there's little reason to analyze [s`] as
>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.
You said it: You've never seen /x\/ in _phonemic_ rendering, therefore its only use is to indicate the _phonetic_ level. Therefore it contradicts that supposed design principle of the IPA alphabet of providing symbols only for those distinctions that are phonemic in some known language.
>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
>laterally? Besides that sounding pretty hard to pull off, it probably
>use some terminological reform, if so.
Not simultaneously, but sequentially. A central stop with a lateral release is a double articulation. The same for a central stop with a nasal release, which is different from a nasal stop proper: [d_n] =/= [n]; similarly [d_l] =/= [K_r] (*). Although theorically it is possible to think of an "anular" kind of plosion where the release is produced simultaneously at the central and lateral levels, but I find that would be a really tough one (I think I can manage to pronounce it in isolation, but I doubt I could manage to intregrate it into fluent speech). -- (*) BTW, come to think of it, using the diacritic for "raising", which applied to consonants has the function of 'raising' the degree of closure by one level (from approximant to fricative, from fricative to plosive), we may be able to represent the lateral stop accurately: [K_r] (i.e. 'raising' the lateral fricative into a lateral stop).
>Additionally, you were denying that [tK] was a true lateral affricate.
>at least what I understand it to mean has central closure thru-out, I
>don't understand why.
I meant a _literal_ rendition of [tK]. [t] is a central sound, not a lateral, thus in a sequence [t]+[K] you not only vary the degree of closure but also change from central to lateral, a change that cannot occur in the middle of a true affricate, just like changes in voicing or in place of articulation cannot occur in the middle of a true affricate. For the true lateral affricate, you need a lateral plosive followed by a lateral fricative, i.e. [K_rK], not a central plosive followed by a lateral fricative.
>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. That's the literal rendition of [tK], which as you say it's not precisely easy to pronounce. A different thing is using /tK/ as a _phonemic_ transcription, which then does not imply that the /t/ part is a central sound, but may stand for a lateral plosive allophone [K_r], so that /tK/ would represent what phonetically is [K_rK].
>I normally maintain central closure thru English and Swedish sequences >like /lt/ and /tl/, even when they've got a word break in them.
Yes, I've noticed a frequently lateralization of /t/ when in a lateral environment in Spanish too, resulting in a lateral stop allophone [K_r] at the phonetic level. Cheers, Javier


Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>