Print

Print


I'm sorry, I meant palatal lateral approximant (the symbol was right, not
the description in this case!). I have no idea why I said fricative! I
didn't expect it would be a fricative, unless I missed that part of the
description. My bad!

-David

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 1:00 AM And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, 00:16 David Peterson <[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> > Ah. Then the sound is [ʎ̟]. (I.e. a palatal fricative but advanced.)
> >
>
> That's my answer too, except on my screen I see only the diacritic of
> advancement (making the palatal dorsopostalveolar) and not the diacritic of
> greater closure (making the approximant a fricative).  [ʎ̟̝] (with two
> stacked diacritics) displays correctly on my screen.
>
> --And.
>
>
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > > On Feb 10, 2019, at 4:05 PM, Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tongue tip is near the *lower* teeth just because that's where it ends
> > up in order to put the rest of the tongue where it needs to be.  Sound
> > production is done by placing the tongue body against the post-alveolar
> > area.  I could be persuaded the tongue body is actually touching the
> > alveolar ridge (although when I compare other known alveolar sounds I can
> > tell the tongue body isn't touching the same place), but it's definitely
> > not retroflex *or* dental, unless the sheer fact of the tongue tip being
> > near any teeth is enough to make it dental.
> > >
> > > I guess the lesson for me here is that I'm being way too perfectionist
> > and looking for the exact, perfect, correct IPA symbol, when it doesn't
> > really have to be that.
> > >
> > > It's also actually kind of cool that it seems phoneme I've had in
> > Alurhsa since its conception doesn't seem to be in use by any natlang.
> > Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. :)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 19-02-10 18:35, David Peterson wrote:
> > >> Wait, hang on. I misread. If the tongue tip is at or near the teeth
> > it’s dental. If the tongue body is high, though, can’t you just say it’s
> > [-anterior]?
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPhone
> > >>
> > >>>> On Feb 10, 2019, at 3:12 PM, Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 19-02-10 17:57, David McCann wrote:
> > >>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:07:50 -0500
> > >>>> Tony Harris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I need some advice from the IPA experts here.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> However, studying my way through the latest IPA chart
> > >>>>> (
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/IPA_chart_2018.pdf)
> > >>>>> I am at a loss how to represent a voiced antero-dorsal
> post-alveolar
> > >>>>> lateral approximant.  (And, as I've said before, I am not a trained
> > >>>>> linguist, nor do I pretend to be one, so I hope I'm using the terms
> > >>>>> in a meaningful way...)
> > >>>> In many Australian languages you get a 4-way contrast generated by
> > >>>> dental vs post-alveolar and apical vs laminal. For the laminal
> > >>>> post-alveolar, Ladefoged used ḻ (underlined l). But don't forget
> that
> > >>>> you can always use the nearest available symbol, so the palatal
> > lateral
> > >>>> ʎ could be used if Alurhsa doesn't have one.
> > >>> Doesn't just using the nearest available symbol sort of defeat the
> > purpose of the IPA being a way to accurately represent the sounds? I
> mean,
> > wouldn't you have to then include a description that essentially says
> "for
> > this language the symbol /x/ means this, not what the IPA says it means"?
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe I'm being to perfectionist. Hmm.
> >
>