Re: Labial lateral (was: the Shwa script)
- perhaps of interest:
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.
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:
> 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.
> Also there is no mention of an "easier to pronounce"
> allophone in version 4.2
> 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]
- (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".
> In either case, it would be something you'd spell with a variation of
> "a" - a goal of the diacritic-ful spelling.
> 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