Re: More from the Popular Linguistics Front
- On 29/03/2013 17:55, George Corley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Padraic Brown wrote:[snip]
> Oh so many errors:
> Not sure on the lateral fricative.Nor IMHO is James Harbeck! What on earth does he mean by
saying that a lateral fricative is "like 'l' but a little
tighter"? If it has any meaning, it must surely describe an
ordinary lateral said with more emphasis. It most certainly
doesn't describe the fricative, whether voiced or voiceless.
If he written that they were like 'l' but softer, I might
have sort of seen what he was getting at. But if one is
going to describe the sound, do it properly.
I've heard the voiceless version often enough, having lived
in Wales for 22 years before moving back to SE England. I
have used it myself and still occasionally use it. I've
never come across anyone using a pulmonic _ingressive_
I have no problem with the voiced form, but little occasion
to use it, not having much knowledge of or occasion to speak
Xhosa, Zulu, Mongolian or Kabardian ;)
But both sounds are your normal pulmonic egressive consonants.
As far as I can make out, ingressive pulmonic sounds are
almost always _paralinguistic_, the only instance of it
being regularly used is AFAIK is in the ǃXóõ language of
Botswana and, according to Wikipedia: Ladefoged & Maddieson
(1996:268) state that "This ǃXóõ click is probably unique
among the sounds of the world's languages that, even in the
middle of a sentence, it may have ingressive pulmonic airflow."
The speech technologist Robert Eklund has a whole page
devoted to pulmonic ingressive phonation:
Don't see any mention of lateral fricatives there ;)
"language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
for individual beings and events."
[Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
- On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Roger Mills <romiltz@...> wrote:
>Of course you can do that, but writers and storytellers use onomatopeia for
> Of course you need to be able to write them (probably mostly in fiction
> whether sci-fi or not). People do utter them in real life, and realistic
> written dialogue is going to have to include them. (Personally I suspect
> that tut-tut, tsk~tisk, tch-tch are all allographs of the same sound.) I'm
> sure most languages have such words, and writers will try to approximate
> them. As for ringtones, they can be handled.....
> "John was about to hop into bed with Leona, when he felt his phone start
> to vibrate [or maybe jingle, or whatever they do....] in his shirt pocket."
> "In the middle of the dinner party, suddenly the opening bars of Bach's
> Toccata and Fugue in D minor blared forth. "Oops, sorry" said Lord Peter,
> red in the face, "I forgot to turn the ruddy thing off."
a reason. Just because we _can_ describe these sounds in other ways
doesn't mean we shouldn't ever consider expressing things with onomatopeia.
Consider a scene like this:
In her foggy and half-sleeping state, it took Sophia longer than it should
have to recognize that the strange low buzzing sound was just her phone
vibrating on the nightstand. She realized she had forgotten to turn on the
sound for her morning alarm. She checked the phone's face for the time:
9:30. Crap, an hour late and she wasn't even out of bed.
The onomatopeia helps the reader visualize the scene more vividly, and put
themselves into the environment of the story. Think also about comics,
where varied onomatopeia play a huge role in expressing all kinds of things
succinctly in a way that can be easily incorporated into the art.