Chinese _r_ (Re: [lojban] Re: Accent)

[Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@math.bas.bg>]

Xin1nian2 kuai4le4, da4jia1!

> From: Robin Turner <robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR>
> la .ivan cusku di'e
[_simile_]
> The romanisation as "j" always used to confuse me;
> even more so the explanation given in some books
> that it is like English "wren" [...].

How about `a cross between a _j_ and a _r_.  No English
equivalent; something like the _z_ in _azure_'?  (Barron's
_Chinese at a Glance_.)

> > Its most common realisation is, from what I've heard
> > and read, /z./ (voiced retroflex fricative).  [...]
> > Does it follow that a Mandarin speaker would/should
> > pronounce Lojban {r} as Mandarin _r_?  By no means.
> 
> I beg to differ.  It probably depends on the particular
> Mandarin speakers we've been exposed to.

It probably does.  Then there's the fact that we have very
different language backgrounds, and it may be that to your
mind English /r/ is a typical /r/-phoneme, whereas to mine
it is a very marginal one, so that something that is yet a
little further off is already out.

Also my perception may be influenced by my reading.  I checked
half a dozen sources, from Mandarin textbooks for speakers of
Russian and English to works on phonology to books on general
linguistics, and in every one of them I came across one of the
following things:

* _r_ is transcribed as /z./ or even /Z/;
* _r_ is described as a shibilant;
* _r_ is said to be a voiced counterpart of _sh_;
* it is stated that Chinese has a single liquid, namely _l_.

Nowhere did I see Schleyer's contention that `Chinese has no _r_'
disputed (that was the reason for the low frequency of _r_ in Vp).
I have no reason not to trust your report of your experience,
of course, but I wonder if diachrony has something to do with it.

> I'd say the Beijing /r/ is still closer to Lojban {r} than {j}
> (especially if you accept that Lojban {r} has a fairly wide
> range of acceptable pronunciation).

Which I suppose I'll have to do, because Lojban {r} is
etymologically related to the /r/s of all six source lgs,
which between them cover quite an area.

> >   in fact the various European _r_ sounds are
> >   universally rendered as _l_ in Chinese [...]
> 
> An interesting point, though remember that a major factor
> in Sinification is the availability of morphemes [...]

It is true that there isn't a huge variety of syllables with
initial _r_, but there still are some, and the fact that none
of them are *ever* used for transcribing European _r_ has got
to be relevant.

> > (There is the `other' _r_, the one in _er_, which has nothing
> > to do with the initial [...].)
> 
> I wouldn't say it has _nothing_ to do with the initial.

Apart from retroflex articulation, perhaps.

-- 
`Man did not weave the web of life,  he is merely a strand in it.
 Whatever he does to the web,  he does to himself.'  (Chief Seattle)
Ivan A Derzhanski                     <http://www.math.bas.bg/~iad/>
H: cplx Iztok bl 91, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria          <iad@math.bas.bg>
W: Dept for Math Lx, Inst for Maths & CompSci, Bulg Acad of Sciences