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

Sat Mar 14 14:43:02 UTC 2009

It appears to me that the sounds of “n” and “l” work similarly.  There is a “light” and “dark” mode (although “n” has an extra nasal component).  The light mode involves the front of the tongue touching the top gums (alveolar region) without the back of the tongue touching (or raising toward) the velar region (top back of the palate).  For example, say “light” and “night”.  I would also say both go velar in anticipation of a “k” or “g” in the same syllable.  Say “sink” and “silk”.
There’s a definite velar “l” before “k” in “silk”.  It sounds like a ‘swallowed’ “l”.  But it does not happen to me in saying “silly” or “silt”, or even “silver”.  At any rate it’s merely an allophone.  Perhaps it’s lexical in some languages and need be denoted.  Not in simple English phonetics.  I suppose velar “n” is lexical in some languages and that’s why it’s denoted.   For simple phonetics the velar “n” can be covered by rule – that “n” goes velar before a “k” or “g” in the same syllable.
I wouldn’t think that “swallowed" dark “l” would be catching on, but I’ll give a listen.

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

----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 21:25:54 -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)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> What you describe in "jump dover" is known as the Maximal Onset Principle:
> Syllables tend to arrange themselves so that if a cluster of consonants is
> between vowels, as much of the cluster as possible (depending on the
> phonotactics of the language) will tend to associate with the onset of the
> second syllable. That's why the etymological "pains-taking" becomes
> pronounced as "pain-staking" (as evident from the lack of aspiration on the
> /t/).
>
> Regarding clear and dark /l/: Yes, it would be silly to draw attention to
> this teeny phonetic difference between the two ... IF English were the only
> language we ever wanted to study. In some languages, however, the two sounds
> belong to different phonemes. (I read that Irish and Russian are like this,
> though I don't know personally.) Also, if English L2 learners want to speak
> it without a nonnative accent, they need to learn the difference. In fact,
> some of the pages I just checked on clear and dark /l/ were from ESL
> teachers wondering how best to teach dark /l/.
>
> You bring up an interesting point about /l/ in positions where for one
> reason (it's after a vowel) it would be dark, but for another reason (it's
> before another vowel) it would be clear. A similar problem comes up in words
> like "tattoo". By Maximal Onset, the second syllable should be /tu/, not
> /u/. And indeed it is, as evidenced by the aspiration of the /t/: [t_h u].
> But OTOH, the ash ("short A") sound in the first syllable is not allowed in
> open syllables in English, so the first syllable should be [t&t], not [t&].
> (& represents ash, right?) So which syllable does the second /t/ belong to?
> The usual position is that it is "ambisyllabic" and belongs to both.
> Similarly, is the /l/ in "fill it up" part of the first syllable or the
> second? Dark or clear? I'm not sure. For me, I think it's dark, since if I
> make an effort to keep my tongue lowered when I say it, it sounds a little
> strange. But maybe for some speakers it starts dark and then gets light.
> Ambisyllabicity in and of itself is a strange enough concept for me, without
> adding in the complication of clear and dark /l/.
>
> Neal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Zurinskas"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:31 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)
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thanks for the excellent example. Certainly, with dark and light "l"
>> we're dealing with allophones. In fact I think it rather silly to flag
>> the fact that when the "l" is at the end of a word it becomes "dark", by a
>> raising of the tongue to the velar, and then to say the dark goes away if
>> another syllable or even word is added. What's the big deal.
>>
>> For instance the single word "fill" is said to have dark "l" but "filler"
>> or and ""fill it up" in a sentence would not because the "l" sound
>> transfers to lead the next syllable or word. I actually feel that when
>> the single word ending in "l" is said the tongue is lowered for the "l"
>> then returns upward toward the velum to close out or stop the word.
>>
>> This also works for endings of single word pronunciations of "jumped" and
>> "sing". Said indivitually you might hear "jumpt" and "sing" without a full
>> "g" as the mouth shuts for closure. Yet When put in sentences like "He
>> jumped over it" and "sing it loud", the last consonant moves to begin the
>> next word and changes to its original form. We don't say "jump tover" we
>> say "jump dover". Also "seen git loud."(the "g" gets sounded with a velar
>> n). So words said in isolation are not representative of their majority
>> use. But we're just talking allophones. No big deal in a simple phonetic
>> notation to flag them.
>>
>> Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
>> see truespel.com
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------
>>> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:06:37 -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)
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/linguistics/russell/phonetics/narrower/dark-l.html
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Tom Zurinskas"
>>> To:
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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