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

[Neal Whitman]

That's right; velarized /l/ is an allophone of /l/. If you've listened to
Americans speaking English, you've heard it. If you're writing a phonemic
transcription, there's no special notation for it -- at least, not in
English, since nonvelarized ("clear") /l/ and velarized ("dark") /l/ are
allophones of the same phoneme in English. "Mill", for example, would be
/mIl/, even though the /l/ in it would (for most speakers) be velarized.

But someone writing a phonetic transcription would probably note the
difference. There is an IPA symbol for velarized /l/; it's [l] with a tilde
across it. In a phonetic transcription, "mill" would be [mIl~] (with ~
superimposed on l).

Neal

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Zurinskas" <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:04 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)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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

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