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

Fri Mar 13 18:03:46 UTC 2009

It would be good to list some words both for near-velar (dark l) versus non-velar (regular l) so I can hear them in thefreedictionary.com and compare them.  I don't understand why "mill" would be dark l.  Is it because "l" is the last syllable?  I don't think "milt" is near velar.  Are we talking USA accent?

For a simple notation like truespel, those l's would be merely spelled as "l".  The same applies to velar n and regular n. Also palatized k and velar k.

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

----------------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:27:29 -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)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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"
> To:
> 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
>> Poster: Tom Zurinskas
>> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®.
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=TXT_MSGTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme

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