Re: Two retroflex series?

Sorry for replying to an old post.  I'm going thru backmail after a while
of preoccupation with Conculture and the Real World(tm)...

At 18:58 23.12.2002 +0000, Jan van Steenbergen wrote:

>  --- Pablo David Flores skrzypszy:
>
> > >      I would like to add a series of retroflexes to the language. I was
> > > wondering if there are any natural languages that distinguish points of
> > > articulation between different sets of retroflexes, such as a series of
> > > retroflex stops with tounge reaching for top of hard-palate versus a
> series
> > > with toung reaching for soft-palate?
> >
> > My idea is that the latter are fairly uncomfortable and probably
> > not contrastive enough, but am I right?
>
>I think you are right; it is not impossible, but not very convenient. I would
>be surprised if no natlang at all had such a feature, but I would be even more
>surprised if many natlangs had it.
>IMO, those two series of retroflexes can be made in a much easier fashion: by
>distinguishing between apical and laminal position of the tongue. That would
>work not only for the retroflexes, but also, in particular, for dentals and
>alveolars.
>
>Jan
Some dialects of Swedish distinguish -- or used to distinguish, since
dialects are dying out :-( -- sublamino-postalveolar sounds from
sublamino-palatal sounds.  The standard Swedish retroflexes are
sublamino-postalveolar, so the acoustic effect is that the
sublamino-palatals (usu. called 'cacuminals') are "even more retroflex".

HTH




/ B.Philip Jonsson B^)>
--
mailto:melrochX@melroch.net (delete X!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No man forgets his original trade: the rights of nations and of kings sink
into questions of grammar, if grammarians discuss them.
-Dr. Samuel Johnson (1707 - 1784)