Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: OT: "Claw" (was "I'm new at this")

From:bnathyuw <bnathyuw@...>
Date:Tuesday, November 26, 2002, 17:05
 --- Joe <joe@...> wrote: > On Tuesday 26
November 2002 12:17 pm, you wrote:
> > En réponse à bnathyuw <bnathyuw@...>: > > > or they can take a trip to london, which > realises > > > velar /l/ as something in the range of [w]~[M\] > ( > > > hello christophe ! it finally dawned on me that > this > > > is probably the sound in /belt/ [bEM\?], tho it > could > > > be a fleeting [M] ) > > > > LOL. Did you have a stroke of Maggelity? ;))) As > for velarised /l/ becoming > > [w], [M] or [M\], that doesn't surprise me. [w] is > quite common already as > > an outcome of velarised or velar /l/, and I don't > see why [M\] wouldn't > > happen too, being a velar approximant. Even [M] is > logical. > > Hmm...actually, I pronounce it /bEU?/(when speaking > colloquially). Also, > didn'y /5/ become /w/ in the Polish L with a line > through it (el/, it's > called, IIRC). But, yes, I would say this is > extreme Maggelity.
that's what i was getting at. i always went with the received 'knowledge' that it was an [U], and in most cases it is. but in belt i find i don't really have much if any lip rounding ( or that funny sort of rounding that you get in british english where your lips don't really move but you still get rounding ). that's why i think there might be a tendency, certinaly between an unrounded vowel and a non-labial consonant, for /l/ to come out as [M] or even [M\] rather than [U] or [w]. could just be me tho (!) bn ===== bnathyuw | landan | arR stamp the sunshine out | angelfish your tears came like anaesthesia | phèdre __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com