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

Fri Mar 13 03:04:15 UTC 2009

It's interesting to know that there is such a thing as a velarized "l" as explained here.  I can't say I've heard it and will listen for it.  I try to say it myself, but have great difficulty.  I suppose it's an allophone of regular "l" and gets no special notation for it.

Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
see truespel.com

----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:52:40 -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)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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"
> To:
> 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
>> Poster: Tom Zurinskas
>> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® is up to 70% faster. Now good news travels really fast.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_70faster_032009

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