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

 --- 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