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

[Herb Stahlke]

Truespel is roughly phonemic, and so it wouldn't make a distinction
between bright and dark /l/, since that's strictly allophonic.  For
many speakers of American English /l/ is always velarized after a
vowel, that is, at the end of a syllable.  For some speaker it's
velarized before vowels as well, so the /l/ in "lull" would both be
velarized for these speakers.  For others, like speakers of Black
English whom we've discussed earlier in this thread, there is little
or no velarization.  Not having heard your speech, Tom, I don't know
which group you fall into.  There is no anatomical reason why
post-vocalic /l/ has to be velarized.  It just is.  These things
frequently don't have reasons.  They just are.  So the /l/ of "mill"
is dark because that's what most English speakers do.

Herb



On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Tom Zurinskas <truespel at hotmail.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- 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