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

Fri Mar 13 19:06:37 UTC 2009

http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/linguistics/russell/phonetics/narrower/dark-l.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Zurinskas" <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 2:03 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 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

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