LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CONLANG Archives


CONLANG Archives

CONLANG Archives


CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONLANG Home

CONLANG Home

CONLANG  February 2002, Week 1

CONLANG February 2002, Week 1

Subject:

Re: Uvulars, was: A sample of my newborn conlang

From:

Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Constructed Languages List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 1 Feb 2002 15:36:55 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (67 lines)

On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 12:02:34 +0000, Stephen Mulraney
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:58:38 -0500
>Vasiliy Chernov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> At first I always produced heavily velarized sounds while trying to
>> pronounce a uvular stop. Then I recalled my native accent (or rather a
>> logopeutic problem),
>
>"logopeutic problem" = an exercise designed to to teach unfamiliar phones?

Sorry, I meant "logop(a)edic". Related to speech therapy, that is.

>> substituting normal Russian [r] with the uvular trill,
>> and realized that no velarization was necessary.

>Does the Russian soft/hard distinction describe a palatalised/velarised
>difference, or a palatalised/unpalatalised one? I thought the latter was
>the case for Irish, but after seeing a few times that it should be the
>former, my mouth and ears are beginning to belive it ;)

In principle, yes. Velarization seems to be absent in labials, irrelevant
in velars (here "palatalized" and "velaized" are simply two different
main articulations), rather pronounced in dentals (roughly, like in
American English word-finally, where they have a completely different
reason for being velarized), heavy in [r] [S] [Z], very heavy in [l].
Besides, [S] and [Z] are pronounced with lips protruded but not rounded,
which adds a lot to their "deep" sound (a similar "flat labialization"
is also typical, though, of their "soft" correlates).
>
>> What seems to be really difficult is to produce a pure (not affricated)
>> uvular stop (without confusing "uvular" with "deep velar").
>
>For you, you mean, or universally?

I meant, universally. This was specially noted for uvular "stops" in a few
phonetic research papers I read; I could hear such affrication in Georgian;
I don't know of any natlang distinguishing uvular stops from affricates;
Starostin (in Preface to his/Nikolaev's Etymological Dictionary of North
Caucasian Languages) groups all uvular stops with affricates, partly for
historical reasons: whenever affricates develop (in terms of voice,
glottalization &like) differently prom stops proper, uvulars follow the
"affricate" pattern, etc.

>I notice that my uvular stops tend to
>be more affricated than say my dental stops, but a stop/fricative
distinction
>is still possible.

Yes, sure. Moreover, fricatives can have several distinct qualities. For
example, Abkhazian [x] vs. [X] seem to be not "velar" vs. "uvular" (as it
is often stated), but rather two different uvulars: one more "apical", the
other sort of more "flat".

>Stephen
>
>PS. Thank you, Basilius, for your lengthy answer to my "phonemes" question,
which
>was of course naiver that I belived it to be when posting ;). I will
respond to
>it when I have some time to think about the subject (i.e. not today)

I'm glad to hear that my comments may be helpful :)


Basilius

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Error during command authentication.

Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=111). The server is probably not started.

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager