Author Topic: Notation: voiceless velarisation (voicing and secondary articulation)  (Read 7688 times)

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Is there any common usage of accepted convention of transcribing voiceless laryngealisation?

e.g. [lˠ] → [l̥ˠ] or [l̥ˣ]

Or would [ɫ̥ ɫ] be the preferred notation?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2014, 07:06:29 AM by freknu »

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Notation: voiceless laryngealisation
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2014, 10:12:19 AM »
I don't think that laryngealization is necessarily voiced. So if /t/ is laryngealized it will be unvoiced, while /d/ would be voiced. So just follow from that. I would use whatever symbol is most appropriate for the main articulation and include the diacritic for secondary articulation as normal.
(Of course you might want to somehow indicate a distinction between laryngealization then devoicing versus devoicing then laryngealization, but I don't know that it's practical in IPA to do so or that it really would be intended that way anyway-- it represents pronuncations, that derivations.)

Edit: nevermind; see below.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2014, 07:38:54 PM by djr33 »
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline MalFet

  • Global Moderator
  • Serious Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: us
Re: Notation: voiceless laryngealisation
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2014, 06:32:32 PM »
I'm not quite clear on what you're describing as laryngealization. As I've always used the term, "laryngealization" describes the addition of glottal fry ("creaky voice"), which is itself a kind of non-modal voicing. Likewise, it can't really be unvoiced.

Are you talking about a secondary velar articulation perhaps?

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Notation: voiceless laryngealisation
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2014, 06:41:55 PM »
Oh. I read [ˠ] above and substituted "velarization" in my head. I'm not sure on this one.
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline freknu

  • Forum Regulars
  • Serious Linguist
  • *
  • Posts: 396
  • Country: fi
    • Ostrobothnian (Norse)
Re: Notation: voiceless laryngealisation
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2014, 07:06:03 AM »
Hmm, now I'm getting confused as well :/

I am talking about what most English speakers would call a "dark l", according to wikipedia, a voiced velarised alveo... oh, now I get it.

I'm terribly sorry, the title of the topic was supposed to be "velarised", and the question is about voiceless "velarisation". Gee, do I feel silly!

:-[

So, for lambdic consonants there are 3-4 qualities: flap [ɽ̊ ɽ], approximant [l̥ l], velarised approximant [ɫ̥ ɫ](?), and possibly palatalised approximant [ʎ̥ ʎ](?).

Lambdic flap is the normal realisation.
Lambdic velarised approximant occurs next to [n t d s]
Lambdic palatalised approximant occurs following [i y ɛ œ]
Lambic plain approximant occurs initially and geminate

Thus you could analyse it as a phonemic /ɽ/ with an allophonic [l], with further secondary articulation (or allophones): velarisation [ɫ~lˠ] and palatalisation [ʎ~lʲ].

Should I use the discrete symbols [ɫ ʎ] or modifiers [lˠ lʲ]? I am especially curious because the lambdic can be voiceless as well as voiced. So would that mean that [l̥ˠ] would still be correct? The modifier doesn't indicate any voicing, only secondary articulation?

YES, I am once again delving quite a bit deeper than actually necessary, but that's going to happen now and again ;)
« Last Edit: April 13, 2014, 02:58:09 PM by freknu »

Offline Daniel

  • Administrator
  • Experienced Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 2043
  • Country: us
    • English
Re: Notation: voiceless velarisation (voicing and secondary articulation)
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2014, 09:17:28 AM »
I think then that my original reply applies now :)
Welcome to Linguist Forum! If you have any questions, please ask.

Offline MalFet

  • Global Moderator
  • Serious Linguist
  • *****
  • Posts: 282
  • Country: us
Re: Notation: voiceless velarisation (voicing and secondary articulation)
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2014, 03:45:20 AM »
Velarization describes a process of adding a secondary closure during articulation. The closure itself does not characterize voice, so you can use the diacritic with both voiced and voiceless consonants.

As for using a diacritic versus an independent graph, the convention is to use the graph if the form is the primary expression of a phoneme but the diacritic if you are trying to indicate the result of a secondary phonotactic process.