Uvular /l/ (Was: velarized /l/ again)

[Neal Whitman]

First of all, we're not calling a dark /l/ a "velar /l/", but (as I noted
earlier) a "velarIZED /l/". To me, "velar /l/" would mean the use of [N]
("ng") in place of an /l/, as in "I [N]ike [N]o[N]ipops." If your objection
to "velarized" is that the tongue is not actually touching the velum, or
even getting close enough to cause frication, that's a reasonable objection.
There are probably others who have learned the term and have thought the
same thing. I certainly didn't know what a velarized /l/ was, even though I
knew what a velar consonant was, until the term was explained to me.

In the term's favor, however, there is the fact that the back of the tongue
is raised TOWARD the velum. We don't want to just say "/l/ with the back of
the tongue raised somewhat", not only because that's long and awkward, but
because that could also describe palatalized sounds (vowels or otherwise
nonpalatal consonants formed with the tongue raised toward the hard palate
while it's doing whatever else it needs to do to make the sound). If you
have more transparent and more accurate terms to use for "velarized" and
"palatalized", feel free to introduce them and use them. I read papers all
the time where the author objects to some term on grounds of inaccuracy or
likelihood of misunderstanding, and then proposes his or her own term.
Sometimes it gains traction; sometimes it doesn't. (And sometimes it does,
even though it shouldn't.)

Neal

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Zurinskas" <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Uvular /l/ (Was: velarized /l/ again)


> ---------------------- Information from the mail
> header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Re: Uvular /l/ (Was: velarized /l/ again)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A nasal "l"!
> Yeah, I can do that as you've described, I think.  Quite a difficult
> stretch.
>
> I wouldn't call it velar, anymore than I'd call the other vowel sounds
> velar.
>
> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
> ----------------------------------------
>> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:23:27 -0400
>> From: nwhitman at AMERITECH.NET
>> Subject: Re: Uvular /l/ (Was: velarized /l/ again)
>> To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail
>> header -----------------------
>> Sender: American Dialect Society
>> Poster: Neal Whitman
>> Subject: Re: Uvular /l/ (Was: velarized /l/ again)
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Clarification: When they talk about "velar /l/" here, they mean velarIZED
>> (and I think most of them do write 'velarized' instead of 'velar', just
>> as
>> in the title of the post). As at least one poster has pointed out, a
>> velarIZED /l/ is indeed alveolar: The tongue tip touches the alveolar
>> ridge,
>> but even so, at the same time, the back of the tongue rises somewhat as
>> well. (Is it higher than it goes for the [i] sound, an issue you've
>> brought
>> up? I don't know, but I do know it goes up. If you don't do it, your /l/s
>> sound a little off, like Jerry Reed calling the judge a "hillbilly" in
>> "When
>> You're Hot, You're Hot, or like Snigdha Prakash when she says "dollars.")
>>
>> However, when I talk about a uvular /l/, I do mean uvular. I know from
>> personal experience of making my /l/s this way as a kid that the tip of
>> my
>> tongue stayed on the floor of my mouth, and the back of my tongue touched
>> the way back part of my soft palate (i.e. uvula). This sound really
>> doesn't
>> have anything in common with /l/ at all from an articulatory perspective
>> (other than being a voiced continuant). The airstream is not escaping
>> along
>> the sides of the tongue, as it does for alveolar /l/; it's coming out the
>> nose, as it does for [m, n, N]. The only reason I call it an /l/ is that
>> people who use it really do use it as their realization of /l/. All I can
>> guess is that acoustically it must bear a fair resemblance to alveolar
>> /l/.
>> And to make it, I suggest starting to make the [N] ("ng") sound and
>> really
>> stretch it out. While you're doing that, slowly slide your tongue
>> backwards
>> so that the contact point is maybe 5mm further back, and then you'll
>> probably be making this sound. And if you want to hear what one sounds
>> like,
>> listen to Ira Glass on any episode of This American Life; I'm almost
>> positive that's how he's making his /l/s.
>>
>> Neal

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org