Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Labial lateral (was: the Shwa script)

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Boutilier
    perhaps of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguolabial_consonant i tried using these in a conlang once. sounded kind of cool - you hear e.g. the
    Message 1 of 199 , Jul 31, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      perhaps of interest:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguolabial_consonant
      i tried using these in a conlang once. sounded kind of cool - you hear e.g.
      the plosive and think, whoa, was that /p/ or /t/? there isn't a straight-up
      lateral glide listed on the page but there's no reason that it doesn't work,
      as far as i can tell.

      matt

      On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:45 AM, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:

      > On 31/07/2011 20:26, And Rosta wrote:
      >
      >> Is the labial lateral articulatorily impossible? The IPA
      >> chart says it is, but it's quite easy to create a
      >> midsagittal occlusion with the lips - talking out the
      >> corner(s) of the mouth - and the sound is quite
      >> distinctive. It occurs in the conlang Liva (which was
      >> mentioned on the List recently), in the paradigm slot
      >> where labials intersect with laterals.
      >>
      >
      > This is correct. In version 2.1 (1997) there is a brief
      > explanation of the sound, but [w] is allowed as an easier
      > to pronounce allophone of the sound.
      >
      > In version 4.2 (2002), Claudio gave a fuller description of
      > the sound:
      > {quote}
      > the easiest way to realize it seems to be by the tongue's
      > tip between lips, either in the middle or at one side: in
      > this position imagine to pronounce a common [l]; a more
      > rigorous alternative, as it does not involve the tongue and
      > is hence truly "labial", would be to put lips near only in
      > their central part and leaving two spaces on the sides,
      > though it seems a difficult position, or to put them near
      > on a side and leave a space on the other side.
      > {/quote}
      >
      > Also there is no mention of an "easier to pronounce"
      > allophone in version 4.2
      >
      > --
      > Ray
      > ==============================**====
      > http://www.carolandray.plus.**com <http://www.carolandray.plus.com/>
      > ==============================**====
      > Nid rhy hen neb i ddysgu.
      > There's none too old to learn.
      > [WELSH PROVERB]
      >
    • BPJ
      (For some reason I seem to have saved rather than sent this the day before yesterday.) ... And that s pretty much my idea. Take for instance the Swedish
      Message 199 of 199 , Nov 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        (For some reason I seem to have saved rather than sent this
        the day before yesterday.)

        On 2011-11-03 18:36, Philip Newton wrote:

        > I can imagine that such things can be simplified if "ă" is treated as
        > "something that some people pronounce as TRAP and others as PALM".

        And that's pretty much my idea. Take for instance the Swedish
        dialect I spoke as a kid (and still can switch to if I want to)
        there are three sets in the low front unrounded area:

        1) Words which always have [æ].
        2) Words with free variation between [æ] and [ɛ].
        3) Words with free variation between [æ] and [a].
        4) Words which always have [ɛ].
        5) Words which always have [a].

        The problem is that words which belong to (2) or (3)
        for some speakers may belong to (1) for other speakers;
        I even doubt there is a core of (1) words which always
        have [æ] for *all* speakers. OTOH there is hardly any
        overlap between (2) and (4) or between (3) and (5). The
        origin of this situation is a failed merger of /a/ and
        /ɛ/ before retroflex consonants and /r/ (sometimes
        after /r/, which is usually [ɾ] but [r] when geminate
        or word initial). For my part I have instances where
        different forms of the same word belong to different
        sets among (1,2,3), or at least items which belong to
        (3) but where the relative frequency of the allophones
        is very different, with [a] being very rare in some
        forms and common in others. Moreover some words actually
        belong to (4) in spite of satisfying the criteria for
        inclusion in (2)!

        How should you handle that in a diaphonemic spelling?
        One route is to disregard the existence of (1) and
        spell all (1,2,3) words as if they were (4,5), this can
        be done on etymological grounds or based on which of
        (2,3) they belong to for speakers for whom they don't
        belong to (1), which is essentially the same thing only
        that the etymology is easier to check than the present
        variation on the ground. The alternative strategy is to
        use a single grapheme for the entire (1,2,3) set,
        pretending that the merger didn't fail, and this is in
        fact what I and most others do on the occasions when
        writing the dialect, except that most fail to
        distinguish between (4) and (1,2,3) because the
        standard Swedish alphabet as well as the spelling
        traditions of dialect literature in a wider Swedish
        perspective lack good symbols for making the
        distinction. I spell (4) with _ë_ and (1,2,3) with _ä_
        even though that means that most words which are
        spelled with _ä_ in standard Swedish get spelled with
        _ë_. Thus what the letter _ä_ in my spelling signals to
        a reader is

        "This word has [æ], but may sometimes have either [ɛ]
        (_ë_) or [a] (_â_) for most speakers"

        and that's actually good enough: you will know which
        words belong to which of (1,2,3) for yourself, and if
        you are not and should actually want to learn to speak
        the dialect (which is unlikely to be the case) you will
        not raise as many eyebrows, and sound less like an
        outsider, if you speak as if all (1,2,3) words belong
        to (1) than if you speak as if (1,2,3) didn't exist.

        > Then for BATH=PALM people, it will *usually* be the same sound as
        > BATH, but could (for you) be the same sound as TRAP in variable words
        > such as "plastic" or -graph words such as "telegraph".

        Exactly.

        > In either case, it would be something you'd spell with a variation of
        > "a" - a goal of the diacritic-ful spelling.

        Precisely.

        > It would mean that you'd have to learn the spelling of such
        > "anomalous" words by heart if you want to spell the "standard
        > diaphonemic" dialect, but most people would have to do so anyway.

        Yes alas! I've often observed that linguistic
        discrimination is almost the only form of
        discrimination which is totally legal and enforced in
        most western European countries. I have often come
        across young native speakers of Swedish (most often
        female) who claim that they "don't know Swedish",
        because they speak a regional accent (ass if anyone
        didn't!) or because they can't handle all the niceties
        of the normative written language, and I have always
        caused a moment of enlightenment and relief when I've
        pointed out that they are in fact victims of linguistic
        discrimination, and that "knowing Swedish" doesn't mean
        that you don't speak with a regional accent, because
        everyone does, or being a good stylist or having a large
        written-norm vocabulary.

        /bpj
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.