Ray Brown wrote: > On Friday, February 6, 2004, at 10:21 AM, Andreas Johansson wrote: > >> Quoting Ray Brown <[log in to unmask]>: > > [snip] > >>> And I completely perplexed by rhotic plosive unless by that term you >>> mean >>> what I >>> call retroflex plosive (and half a century ago were often quaintly >>> called >>> 'cerebral >>> stop' in texts books). >> >> >> Some books seem to use the terms "rhotic" and "retroflex" >> interchangeably >> - >> I've seen Swedish /r/+dental series described as "rhotic", and Am >> Eng's V+ >> /r/ >> sequences as "retroflex vowels". > > > Exactly! However, retroflex is a more well defined term IME. For > example, > I've never come across the French uvular trill, uvular voiced > fricative & > uvular approximant pronunciations of /r/ described as 'retroflex', tho > they have been (and are) called 'rhotics'. Indeed, I'm finding it > difficult to see (or hear) what the trilled [r] of Italian & Welsh has in > common with the uvular approximant common in modern northern French, > other > than that both are voiceless. > >> 'Cerebral stop'? Explanation of origin of that term? > > > 'stop' of course was the old 19th century term for what we now commonly > call in te anglophone world a 'plosive' and the French call an > 'occlusive' > (the term is also occasionally found in English). As for > 'cerebral'...... Old 19th century? Not to my knowledge. I still use it, and I'm fifteen.Plus, the use of Latin words where we have perfectly good English words for something annoys me slightly. Cerebral is a translation of the Sanskrit term 'mu:rdhyana', meaning 'made in the head', or something like that.