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

Sat Mar 14 00:49:35 UTC 2009

I agree.   I do call truespel a "phonetic" system.  The term "phonemic" has various meanings.  People understand the term phonetic in terms of dictionary keys.

How about m-w.com or thefreedictionary.com.  Do the velarize their "l"s much for various words like lull, little.  My accent can be heard below in my talk about truespel.

http://tinypaste.com/764f4

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

----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:25:47 -0400
> From: hfwstahlke at GMAIL.COM
> 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: Herb Stahlke
> Subject: Re: Uvular /l/ (Was: velarized /l/ again)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 wrote:
>> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
>> Sender: American Dialect Society
>> Poster: Tom Zurinskas
>> 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
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Groups: Create an online spot for your favorite groups to meet.
http://windowslive.com/online/groups?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_groups_032009

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