Linguist Forum
Specializations => Phonetics and Phonology => Topic started by: freknu on July 30, 2014, 02:42:41 AM
-
What would it be if a flap [ɽ] is pronounced without the actual flap, but as a glide in the position of a flap?
-
That's basically what the standard American rhotic is ([ɹ]). Whether it's a glide or just an approximant, though, will depend on the phonotactics of the language.
-
Interesting, I never thought of that — but you're absolutely right! At least my English r:s (excluding trills or silent r) turn into something very close to that. I'm wondering whether it might be a lateral; although, it might not actually touch the roof of the mouth or create a lateral flow ... no, I don't think it does.
Would it be more consistent/coherent/logical/sane to still use [ɽ] but with a note, or would [ɹ] or something else make more sense. It is semi-phonemically an [ɽ], but (sometimes) before /n t d s/ (I still haven't worked out the exact rules) the flap is blocked and it becomes a "flapless flap", almost an [ɭ] but the tip of the tongue is curved further back, and the tongue is moved back further, essentially a velar sound ... I think.
Retracted [ɻ̠]? Velarised [ɻˠ]?
What is interesting is that the plain [l] also changes before these four coronals (basically all coronals except the lambdics/rhotics).
køld [cçɞɽd]
hald [hɑɫd]
Note: I was using glide/approximant interchangeably — in case it caused any confusion.
PS. Isn't the English /r/ actually an [ɻ], though? Hence the similarity.
-
Would it be more consistent/coherent/logical/sane to still use [ɽ] but with a note, or would [ɹ] or something else make more sense.
Just depends on the purpose of transcription. Either way would be fine, as long as it was made clear. Using /X/ for a phoneme is standard, while [X] is used for a specific phonetic pronunciation. So since you're using [X], I'd say go with what's more precise, to the degree it is relevant for your description.
-
Would it be more consistent/coherent/logical/sane to still use [ɽ] but with a note, or would [ɹ] or something else make more sense.
Just depends on the purpose of transcription. Either way would be fine, as long as it was made clear. Using /X/ for a phoneme is standard, while [X] is used for a specific phonetic pronunciation.
Yes, I know that ;)
However, since I don't know the precise phonemicity I have to describe them at their basic phonetic value. Until demonstrated as phonemic, all sounds are phonetic.
-
I'd suggest transcribing in as much reasonable detail as possible (at least basic material) then, as you said, determining phonemes.
In short, does it matter? Or could it matter? If not just [r] is actually fine.
-
The lambdics/rhotics are a bit of a mess, so figuring out exactly what is a phoneme or not is difficult. However, going as far as to transcribe it as [r] would be really strange ... at least to me, it's a lambdic.
Replacing [l] or [ɽ] with [r] would make it sound like childish gibberish or something, really strange.
It might not matter all that much, but in trying to write up the orthography I would like to have decent transcriptions/explanations for the pronunciations.
[l] → [ɫ] before {n t d s} is not a terribly important detail, it can be left as [l], similarly this might not be very important either, but as always, I like to try and map out as much as possible to get a good overview and then settle for one way or another.
-
I don't really have anything useful to contribute, but is the language you're dealing with some variety of Faroese?
-
I don't really have anything useful to contribute, but is the language you're dealing with some variety of Faroese?
It's my mother tongue, a Norse dialect spoken in Ostrobothnia, in particular the southern region of Ostrobothnia. There are some differences among the Norse dialects in Finland (not counting Finland-Swedish which is a Swedish dialect), but much of what I do could still probably be used in many other dialects. I just prefer to work with the region/dialect that I am familiar with, as you move to other nearby dialects — although very similar — you immediately run into issues with phonology, grammar, and so on. Still, it's not all that great differences, still perfectly mutually intelligible across all regions — as far as I know.
-
Interesting, I never thought of that — but you're absolutely right! At least my English r:s (excluding trills or silent r) turn into something very close to that. I'm wondering whether it might be a lateral; although, it might not actually touch the roof of the mouth or create a lateral flow ... no, I don't think it does.
Rhotics (and lambdics) are generally a mess for narrow transcription. The issue is not just complex phonotactics (though it's also that), but I'd bet a pile of donuts that if you took a careful articulation sample you'd find a lot of "free" variation not only between speakers but also by the same speaker at different times. Especially as approximants, rhotics tend to behave more like vowels than consonants in some ways. They move around a lot.
Would it be more consistent/coherent/logical/sane to still use [ɽ] but with a note, or would [ɹ] or something else make more sense. It is semi-phonemically an [ɽ], but (sometimes) before /n t d s/ (I still haven't worked out the exact rules) the flap is blocked and it becomes a "flapless flap", almost an [ɭ] but the tip of the tongue is curved further back, and the tongue is moved back further, essentially a velar sound ... I think.
There's no absolute right answer here, but my personal rule of thumb is to write whatever I need to in order to allow people who know IPA (but not the language being documented) to reproduce a word without making native speakers cringe. Beyond that, I tend not to worry much unless I'm looking at something very specific after I have a pretty firm sense of the phonology already in place.
That approach suits my purposes, but it may not suit yours. For what it's worth, I tend to treat phonetics as essential to a proper understanding of phonology (especially diachronically), but I don't generally pay much attention to phonetics for its own sake beyond that. A true-blue phonetician (or a hardline generative phonologist, for that matter) will have very different goals.
What is interesting is that the plain [l] also changes before these four coronals (basically all coronals except the lambdics/rhotics).
køld [cçɞɽd]
hald [hɑɫd]
Note: I was using glide/approximant interchangeably — in case it caused any confusion.
PS. Isn't the English /r/ actually an [ɻ], though? Hence the similarity.
It floats between alveolar and retroflex, depending on speaker and dialect. Where I grew up in the upper midwest (chock full of Scandinavians!) it tends to sit farther back, but off the top of my head I suspect that's related to spread from vowel shifts that also go on there. Honestly, I have a hard time hearing the difference between the two, especially when rounded.
Glide and approximant are reasonably interchangeable, though in my circles at least the (soft) convention is to reserve "glide" for semivowels. That distinction really only becomes important once you start making claims about syllable structure, however.
-
Rhotics (and lambdics) are generally a mess for narrow transcription. The issue is not just complex phonotactics (though it's also that), but I'd bet a pile of donuts that if you took a careful articulation sample you'd find a lot of "free" variation not only between speakers but also by the same speaker at different times. Especially as approximants, rhotics tend to behave more like vowels than consonants in some ways. They move around a lot.
It probably does, and it wouldn't surprise me if some of my earlier trouble was simply from the sheer amount of variation.
There's no absolute right answer here, but my personal rule of thumb is to write whatever I need to in order to allow people who know IPA (but not the language being documented) to reproduce a word without making native speakers cringe. Beyond that, I tend not to worry much unless I'm looking at something very specific after I have a pretty firm sense of the phonology already in place.
Right, that would be really nice — as a sidenote I'm simply trying to create a documentation good enough to also be suitable for teaching. Native speakers already know the pronunciation, but intuitively knowing and intellectually understanding are two different things.
It floats between alveolar and retroflex, depending on speaker and dialect. Where I grew up in the upper midwest (chock full of Scandinavians!) it tends to sit farther back, but off the top of my head I suspect that's related to spread from vowel shifts that also go on there. Honestly, I have a hard time hearing the difference between the two, especially when rounded.
I wonder, are retroflex consonants rare? Admittedly, my language doesn't use them to the same degree as e.g. Hindi, but at least I'm still "acclimatised" to the basic retroflexes found in my dialect.
It's also intrigues me how Old English [r] became [ɹ~ɻ] and Old Norse [l rð] became [ɽ]. I know it's pretty much the whole point of "diachonicity(?)", shit happens, but some changes still remain quite interesting. At least for /rn rt rd rs/ → [ɳ ʈ ɖ ʂ] there is a very clear underlying pattern.
-
I wonder, are retroflex consonants rare? Admittedly, my language doesn't use them to the same degree as e.g. Hindi, but at least I'm still "acclimatised" to the basic retroflexes found in my dialect.
As a point of closure in articulation, retroflex consonants are quite common, usually in complex alternation with alveolars (via, for example, feature spreading from vowels). Alveolar vs retroflex contrasts, on the other hand, are much less common, and sizable bulk of what does exist is a South Asian areal feature. Outside of South Asia, I wouldn't go so far as to call retroflexes rare, though perhaps "notable".
It's also intrigues me how Old English [r] became [ɹ~ɻ] and Old Norse [l rð] became [ɽ]. I know it's pretty much the whole point of "diachonicity(?)", shit happens, but some changes still remain quite interesting. At least for /rn rt rd rs/ → [ɳ ʈ ɖ ʂ] there is a very clear underlying pattern.
That is interesting. I know next to nothing about English/Germanic, but lateral<->retroflex alternations are phonetically motivated and thus reasonably common. Was there really a merger between [l] and [rð] in Old Norse? That's more surprising than the retroflexion!
-
I wonder, are retroflex consonants rare? Admittedly, my language doesn't use them to the same degree as e.g. Hindi, but at least I'm still "acclimatised" to the basic retroflexes found in my dialect.
As a point of closure in articulation, retroflex consonants are quite common, usually in complex alternation with alveolars (via, for example, feature spreading from vowels). Alveolar vs retroflex contrasts, on the other hand, are much less common, and sizable bulk of what does exist is a South Asian areal feature. Outside of South Asia, I wouldn't go so far as to call retroflexes rare, though perhaps "notable".
I see, retroflexes aren't unusual as such, it's just that in most cases they don't contrast with their alveolar counterparts — so an English speaker would have trouble hearing the difference, but not find the sound itself particularly strange.
It's also intrigues me how Old English [r] became [ɹ~ɻ] and Old Norse [l rð] became [ɽ]. I know it's pretty much the whole point of "diachonicity(?)", shit happens, but some changes still remain quite interesting. At least for /rn rt rd rs/ → [ɳ ʈ ɖ ʂ] there is a very clear underlying pattern.
That is interesting. I know next to nothing about English/Germanic, but lateral<->retroflex alternations are phonetically motivated and thus reasonably common. Was there really a merger between [l] and [rð] in Old Norse? That's more surprising than the retroflexion!
As far as I know, some dialects of Norwegian, Swedish, and for certain some Norse dialects in Finland (Finland-Swedish doesn't have retroflection), have merged [l rl rð] to varying degree. In Swedish [ɽ] is probably quite archaic today and I think it remains in only a few dialects, [l] becoming [ɽ], but [rl] becomes [ɭ], and I'm uncertain about [rd]. In Norwegian it should be fairly common, depending on the region, except [rl] becomes [ɭ] as in Swedish, but [l rd] becomes [ɽ] in dialects where it is present. In Norwegian there might even be contrast, possibly making them contrastive phonemes /l ɽ/.
My dialect has all three [l rl rd] → [ɽ], and so far the distribution of [l ɽ] seems to be codependent? (is that the word), although there might be some positions where the two have some minimal contrast.
An underlying [l] occurs
- initially {hl- l-}
- geminate {ll}
- next to /n t d s/ (usually in the root) ← position of the tongue inhibits flap
- after /i(ː) y(ː)/ ← position of the tongue inhibits flap
- in some cases after /ɛ/ ← perhaps influence or earlier geminate
An underlying [ɽ] occurs
- in come cases before /n t d s/ (usually in inflection or derivation)
- in place of [rd rl]
- elsewhere
l → [ɽ]
tal [tɑɽ] "number; speech" ← ON. tal [tɑl] ← PG. *talą [tɑlɑ̃]
rþ → [ɽ]
gárþ [goɑɽ] "garden, yard" ← ON. garðʀ [gɑrðʀ] ← PG. *gardaz [gɑrðɑz]
rl → [ɽ]
kerl~kérl [cçɜɽ~cçɜːɽ] "dish, plate" ← *kazaþlą [kɑzɑθlɑ̃]
hl- l- → [l]
hlíþ [l̥eid−voc leid+voc] "hillside, slope" ← ON. hlíð [l̥iːð] ← PG. *hlīþō [xliːθɔː]
leiþ [lɜid] "way, path" ← ON. leið [leið+front+raise]OWN [læið+front−raise]OEN [lɜið−front−raise]Ostr. ← PN. *laido [lɑ̈iðo] ← PG. *laidō [lɑiðɔː]
ll → [lː]
hall [hɑlː] "hall" ← ON. hǫll [hɒlː+u-mut]OWN hall [hɑlː−u-mut]OEN ← PG. *hallō [xɑlːɔː]
lC → [l]
-ln-?
halt [hɑl̥t] "halt, limping" ← ON. haltʀ [hɑl̥tʀ] ← PG. *haltaz [xɑltɑz]
hald [hɑld] "to hold" ← ON. halda [hɑldɑ] ← PG. *haldaną [xɑldɑnɑ̃]
hals [hɑl̥θ̱] "neck, throat" ← ON. hals [hɑl̥s] ← PG. *halsaz [xɑlsɑz]
lC → [ɽ]
gúln [gɵʉɽn] "to grow yellow" ← ON. **gulna [gulnɑ] ← PG. **gulanōną [gulɑnɔːnɑ̃]
hált [hɑːɽ̊t] "slippery" (n. pos.) ← hál [hɑːɽ] ← ON. hálʀ [hɑːlʀ] ← PN. **hālaz [xɑːlɑz] ← PG. *hēlaz [xɛːlɑz]
kǿld~køld [cçɞːɽd~cçɞɽd] "coldness" ← PG. *kōliþō [kɔːliθɔː]
tals [tɑɽ̊θ̱] "number; speech" (gen. sg.) (reduced form of talas)
Cl → [l]
-nl-?
kitlar [cçitl̥ɑr~cçiʔl̥ar?] "tickles" ← ON. kitla [citl̥ɑ] PG. **kitilōną [kitilɔːnɑ̃]
óþlar [oudlɑr~oud̥l̥ɑr?] "grows" ← ON. **óðla [oːðlɑ] (cf. óðal, óðlast) ← PG. **ōþalōną [ɔːθɑlɔːnɑ̃] ← *ōþalą [ɔːθɑlɑ̃]
veslo [ʋɛsl̥o] "weasel" ← ON. visla [wisl̥ɑ] ← PG. *wisulǭ [wisulɔ̃ː]
(i, y)l → [l]
hvíl [ʋ̥eil−voc ʋeil+voc] "to rest" ← ON. hvíla [hwiːlɑ] ← PG. *hwīlōną [xwiːlɔːnɑ̃]
ýl [øyl] "to howl"
el → [l]
ela [ɛlɑ~ɛlɔ] "or; nor" ← ON. ella [elːɑ] ← PG. *aljǭ [ɑljɔ̃ː]
el → [ɽ]
elf [ɜɽʋ] "river" ← ON. elfʀ [elvʀ] ← PG. *albijō [ɑlβijɔː]
(red text indicates uncertain pronunciation)
Hopefully that's not too messy :)
-
Just a note to add: I believe retroflexes are fairly common in Austalian languages also.
-
Since I managed to find them again, here are two links which provide samples for Swedish and Norwegian dialects.
SweDia 2000 (Swedish)
http://swedia.ling.gu.se/
Nordavinden og sola (Norwegian)
http://www.ling.hf.ntnu.no/nos/nos_kart.html