From pycyn@aol.com Tue Aug 21 10:26:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 21 Aug 2001 17:26:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 88142 invoked from network); 21 Aug 2001 17:21:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 21 Aug 2001 17:21:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta1 with SMTP; 21 Aug 2001 17:21:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.86.e8a3713 (18709) for ; Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <86.e8a3713.28b3f28e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:21:18 EDT Subject: r's To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_86.e8a3713.28b3f28e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_86.e8a3713.28b3f28e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My (highly fallible) memory has it that there were some studies at UCLA in the 70 or 80's maybe by Vicky Fromkin and/or Peter Ladefoged on both various things that counted as r's and on sequisyllabic words like Carl and Earl. The archives should have some informative spectrograms, if so. The only postvocalic r's that seem to be problematic in Lojban are the Broad Brits (including those of the upper US), who try to get by with lengthening and various odd congestions in the back of their throats (which they regularly deny happens and sometimes does not), and really thorough uvular French r's. The first ends up being just the vowel to many ears, the second falls dangerously close to /x/ for people not too used to the real thing (and even some who are). Trills, flaps and retroflex fricatives work best -- and the last two make for easy syllabics. The uvular also works if extended (though I always need to spit shortly thereafter). In passing, I should note another syllabic consonant (or two) in some Lojban idiolects. These are /s/ and /z/ (I have not heard /c/ nor /j/ but they are surely possible and even likely) They turn up in Chinese names and correspond to Chinese sounds : {s,ma} (Ssu-ma) and {laud,z} (Lao-tse) and other like that. The first case can be treated as a buffered consonant cluster, maybe the second, too. But the "buffering" is quite different from the usual ones, being a buzz with not particular vowel articulation. --part1_86.e8a3713.28b3f28e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My (highly fallible) memory has it that there were some studies at UCLA in
the 70 or 80's maybe by Vicky Fromkin and/or Peter Ladefoged on both various
things that counted as r's and on sequisyllabic words like Carl and Earl.
The archives should have some informative spectrograms, if so.
The only postvocalic r's that seem to be problematic in Lojban are the Broad
Brits (including those of the upper US), who try to get by with lengthening
and various odd congestions in the back of their throats (which they
regularly deny happens and sometimes does not), and really thorough uvular
French r's. The first ends up being just the vowel to many ears, the second
falls dangerously close to /x/ for people not too used to the real thing (and
even some who are). Trills, flaps and retroflex fricatives work best -- and
the last two make for easy syllabics. The uvular also works if extended
(though I always need to spit shortly thereafter).
In passing, I should note another syllabic consonant (or two) in some Lojban
idiolects. These are /s/ and /z/ (I have not heard /c/ nor /j/ but they are
surely possible and even likely) They turn up in Chinese names and
correspond to Chinese sounds : {s,ma} (Ssu-ma) and {laud,z} (Lao-tse) and
other like that. The first case can be treated as a buffered consonant
cluster, maybe the second, too. But the "buffering" is quite different from
the usual ones, being a buzz with not particular vowel articulation. --part1_86.e8a3713.28b3f28e_boundary--