Help with labialization, palatalization, and aspiration

[Maulrus]

One of the most discouraging elements in my conlanging is my near-complete lack of understanding of these topics. When working on my first conlang, I tried to ignore them, but I'm incredibly frustrated by being unable to use them. So at the risk of utter noobishness, I'm going to ask about them.

1) Labialization. Is quit actually pronounced [kʷɪt] or [kwit]? If it's the former, then I understand labialization.

2) Palatalization. What does [tʲ] sound like relative to [tj]? Are they pretty similar?

3) Aspiration. This is what continues to confound me. I've done the "hand up to the mouth thing", and I can feel the difference between "spin" and "pin," but I can't seem to hear it. I also am not sure how to overcome my English-based propensity to aspirate those stops at the beginning of words; how, for example, can I say [p˭ɪn]?

I know these questions are sorta vague, but this is driving me crazy. I could really use any help with this stuff.

[zompist]

2) Palatalization. What does [tʲ] sound like relative to [tj]? Are they pretty similar?

Similar, but not the same. In [tʲ] the two sounds are simultaneous (co-articulated). Pronounce the [t] while also raising the tongue as if to pronoune .

[tj] by contrast is an ordinary sequence— [t] then [j].

[Maulrus]

2) Palatalization. What does [tʲ] sound like relative to [tj]? Are they pretty similar?

Similar, but not the same. In [tʲ] the two sounds are simultaneous (co-articulated). Pronounce the [t] while also raising the tongue as if to pronoune .

[tj] by contrast is an ordinary sequence— [t] then [j].

Thank you for the prompt response! It's hard for me to be sure I'm not adding a [j] behind the [t]; is there any compendium of audio samples of sounds beyond just straight-up stops and fricatives?

[Drydic]

Taking these out of order because it worked out that way when I threw this together.

3) Aspiration. This is what continues to confound me. I've done the "hand up to the mouth thing", and I can feel the difference between "spin" and "pin," but I can't seem to hear it. I also am not sure how to overcome my English-based propensity to aspirate those stops at the beginning of words; how, for example, can I say [p˭ɪn]?

Say [p], but close your throat so no air gets out. That's the easiest way to get a [p] with no aspiration. Same with [t] and [k]. Alternate that with your 'normal' [p^hɪn] until you can hear it. It isn't easy when you've never known it exists. Once you can hear it, you'll be able to distinguish the two.

1) Labialization. Is quit actually pronounced [kʷɪt] or [kwit]? If it's the former, then I understand labialization.

Quit is pronounced [kwɪt] (sometimes [kʷwɪt] but ignore that for now). Here's what you do. Say [k], but like earlier close your throat, but also pull your lips back away from your teeth. That is [k]. Now bunch up your lips like you're saying loot and say [k] again, but still don't let any air out of your throat. That's [kʷ]. Now pass out because you haven't been breathing. Let us know when you wake up.

I know these questions are sorta vague, but this is driving me crazy. I could really use any help with this stuff.

Everyone's gotta learn somehow. It's cool.

[Ser]

is there any compendium of audio samples of sounds beyond just straight-up stops and fricatives?

http://www.phonetics.ucla.edu/index/sounds.html

[Maulrus]

Taking these out of order because it worked out that way when I threw this together.

3) Aspiration. This is what continues to confound me. I've done the "hand up to the mouth thing", and I can feel the difference between "spin" and "pin," but I can't seem to hear it. I also am not sure how to overcome my English-based propensity to aspirate those stops at the beginning of words; how, for example, can I say [p˭ɪn]?

Say [p], but close your throat so no air gets out. That's the easiest way to get a [p] with no aspiration. Same with [t] and [k]. Alternate that with your 'normal' [p^hɪn] until you can hear it. It isn't easy when you've never known it exists. Once you can hear it, you'll be able to distinguish the two.

1) Labialization. Is quit actually pronounced [kʷɪt] or [kwit]? If it's the former, then I understand labialization.

Quit is pronounced [kwɪt] (sometimes [kʷwɪt] but ignore that for now). Here's what you do. Say [k], but like earlier close your throat, but also pull your lips back away from your teeth. That is [k]. Now bunch up your lips like you're saying loot and say [k] again, but still don't let any air out of your throat. That's [kʷ]. Now pass out because you haven't been breathing. Let us know when you wake up.

I know these questions are sorta vague, but this is driving me crazy. I could really use any help with this stuff.

Everyone's gotta learn somehow. It's cool.

Thank you! I'll work on the aspiration. According to Wikipedia, the /t/ in "distaste" is aspirated (cf. unaspirated /t/ in "distend"); is that correct? I feel like I can kind of hear a difference there; in "distend", the s-t transition is smooth, whereas in "distaste" I feel like the 't' has some force behind it.

As for the labialization, I think I get it now. I really appreciate your willingness to walk me through it!

is there any compendium of audio samples of sounds beyond just straight-up stops and fricatives?

http://www.phonetics.ucla.edu/index/sounds.html

:OOO Thank you SO much! This in particular is exactly what I wanted: nearly identical words that show the unpalatalized/palatalized distinction clearly.

[Drydic]

Thank you! I'll work on the aspiration. According to Wikipedia, the /t/ in "distaste" is aspirated (cf. unaspirated /t/ in "distend"); is that correct? I feel like I can kind of hear a difference there; in "distend", the s-t transition is smooth, whereas in "distaste" I feel like the 't' has some force behind it.

Distaste has both. [dɪs.tʰeɪst] The period marks a syllable boundary; the English aspiration isn't blocked (generally, I'm sure with someone somewhere it is) when the sibilant is cross-syllable.

As for the labialization, I think I get it now. I really appreciate your willingness to walk me through it!

[Kai_DaiGoji]

Great, I thought I got it, and now listening to these sound samples, I clearly don't. Anyone know of a sound example that contrasts (for example) [kʷ] and [kw]. The examples I find contrast [kʷ] with [k], and I'm still lost.

Sigh. More work to do.

[David McCann]

The contrasts of [kw] [kj] with [kʷ] [kʲ] can be looked at in two ways.

Firstly there's a phonetic difference. The first pair are two sounds, the second pair are one. In other words, if you look at a spectrogram, the first pair take more time to produce.

Secondly there's a phonological difference. In English we have several sequences of obstruent plus semivowel, so "quit" resembles "twit" and it makes sense to analyse it as /kwɪt/. In a language where k+w was the only such sequence, or where no word could begin with two consonants, it would make more sense to analyse it as [kʷ]. A similar case is provided by the affticates: treating Spanish {ch} as [tš] rahter than [č] would imply that the language had a phoneme [š] which could only occur after [k]!

Of course, thing get more interesting if you can have a contrast. Polish has both [č] {cz} and [tš] {trz}, and Russian can contrast [kj] with [kʲ].

[sirdanilot]

The difference usually just boils down to language based differences. If you have a language with both /kʷ/ and /kw/ as a cluster (and note I am using slashes here to denote I'm talking about phonemes, not phones), yes then the difference is relevant. The former will be pronounced in a shorter amount of time than the latter. But if you are describing a language, or conlanging, then it depends on the other phonemes. Is there also /tʷ/, /pʷ/, /qʷ/, perhaps even /k'ʷ/, /q'ʷ/, etcetera, and they occur systematically and frequently, then yes, it might make sense to describe them as different, labialized phonemes. But if you just happen to have some words with a /kw/ sequence, then inventing a whole new phoneme. So, the conclusion is, these differences are more phonological than phonetical. IPA should be called the 'International Phonological Alphabet' rather than a real phonetic alphabet, since it quite often lacks in the more subtle distinctions.

As for aspiration, I could imagine it being very hard not to aspirate if you speak a language natively that aspirates all voiceless stops (like English); my native Dutch doesn't have aspiration, so for me it's easy. The key is usually just to know what you're doing; if you are conscious of the fact that you are aspirating, you're already halfway. Also notice that most languages don't have a threeway distinction of voiced, voiceless and aspirated; usually it's either voiced versus voiceless (as in Dutch) or aspirated versus non-aspirated, where in the latter case it doesn't really matter whether those phonemes are realized with voice or not (as in English and Danish, but also Chinese). Though threeway and even four-way (with breathy voiced stops) constrasts do occur, of course.

[Drydic]

Great, I thought I got it, and now listening to these sound samples, I clearly don't. Anyone know of a sound example that contrasts (for example) [kʷ] and [kw]. The examples I find contrast [kʷ] with [k], and I'm still lost.

Sigh. More work to do.

Honestly languages which contrast [kʷ] and [kw] aren't that common. And I'd speculate that it isn't a stable distinction.

[sirdanilot]

I think he sees those IPA symbols too much as something actually phonetic, something with a fixed pronounciation. But IPA symbols are just that, symbols. They are handy ways to present the phonology of a particular language without the burden of spelling, but they are still more or less arbitrary chosen. Take the symbol <ʕ>, used to describe the 'ayn in Arabic (a deep guttural sound). This is the IPA symbol for the voiced pharyngeal fricative, but in many Arabic dialects, it isn't even a 'true' voiced pharyngeal fricative, but something more back in the throat (epiglottal). Yet still it is always denoted with <ʕ>, because linguists will immediately see what you're talking about.

[finlay]

Epiglottal and pharyngeal isn't that big a difference.

[sirdanilot]

My point is that a single symbol is used to represent several phonetically different sounds, which are, however, one phoneme, even if that symbol fails to describe all possible realizations accurately.

[finlay]

phoneme symbols, yes. with phonetic transcriptions it kinda depends on what sort of level of accuracy you're going for.

[Drydic]

You're either forgetting or do not know that the IPA in fact does have symbols for epiglottals: [ʡ] and [ʢ], plosive and voiced fricative, respectively. These were in fact introduced, afaik, just for the Arabic sounds.

[sirdanilot]

You're either forgetting or do not know that the IPA in fact does have symbols for epiglottals: [ʡ] and [ʢ], plosive and voiced fricative, respectively. These were in fact introduced, afaik, just for the Arabic sounds.

I know, but if you look at your run-of-the-mill wikipedia transcription of Arabic, it will usually contain the symbol for pharyngeal sounds. Probably because more linguists will recognize it.

[Drydic]

You're either forgetting or do not know that the IPA in fact does have symbols for epiglottals: [ʡ] and [ʢ], plosive and voiced fricative, respectively. These were in fact introduced, afaik, just for the Arabic sounds.

I know, but if you look at your run-of-the-mill wikipedia transcription of Arabic, it will usually contain the symbol for pharyngeal sounds. Probably because more linguists will recognize it.

Also because only some dialects have them.

[TaylorS]

Great, I thought I got it, and now listening to these sound samples, I clearly don't. Anyone know of a sound example that contrasts (for example) [kʷ] and [kw]. The examples I find contrast [kʷ] with [k], and I'm still lost.

Sigh. More work to do.

Honestly languages which contrast [kʷ] and [kw] aren't that common. And I'd speculate that it isn't a stable distinction.

Didn't Latin contrast the two?

[Drydic]

Great, I thought I got it, and now listening to these sound samples, I clearly don't. Anyone know of a sound example that contrasts (for example) [kʷ] and [kw]. The examples I find contrast [kʷ] with [k], and I'm still lost.

Sigh. More work to do.

Honestly languages which contrast [kʷ] and [kw] aren't that common. And I'd speculate that it isn't a stable distinction.

Didn't Latin contrast the two?

Nope.

/kʷ/ and /ku/ to a limited extent yes, but not /kw/.

[Kai_DaiGoji]

Great, I thought I got it, and now listening to these sound samples, I clearly don't. Anyone know of a sound example that contrasts (for example) [kʷ] and [kw]. The examples I find contrast [kʷ] with [k], and I'm still lost.

Sigh. More work to do.

Honestly languages which contrast [kʷ] and [kw] aren't that common. And I'd speculate that it isn't a stable distinction.

This isn't the point. If they are different, I can't tell, and that's what I'm trying to learn. It's like a discussion we had about affricates a while back - someone said that they almost never contrast phonemically with consonant clusters. Okay, fine, but they are different. I'm trying to learn these distinctions, not learn why they don't matter.

[Xephyr]

You're either forgetting or do not know that the IPA in fact does have symbols for epiglottals: [ʡ] and [ʢ], plosive and voiced fricative, respectively. These were in fact introduced, afaik, just for the Arabic sounds.

Isn't this backwards? I've always heard that the vast majority of languages with "pharyngeal" consonants have epiglottal consonants, and that Arabic was one of the few ones where the standard is actually a pharyngeal articulation.

[Drydic]

:shrug: I'm just parroting what the book says.

Great, I thought I got it, and now listening to these sound samples, I clearly don't. Anyone know of a sound example that contrasts (for example) [kʷ] and [kw]. The examples I find contrast [kʷ] with [k], and I'm still lost.

Sigh. More work to do.

Honestly languages which contrast [kʷ] and [kw] aren't that common. And I'd speculate that it isn't a stable distinction.

This isn't the point. If they are different, I can't tell, and that's what I'm trying to learn. It's like a discussion we had about affricates a while back - someone said that they almost never contrast phonemically with consonant clusters. Okay, fine, but they are different. I'm trying to learn these distinctions, not learn why they don't matter.

Barely different. 90% of the world's population won't hear a difference between them. Hell _I_'m not sure I can consistently distinguish between them, I keep throwing palatalization onto the [k]. You're probably fine. And you may get it down the road.

[sirdanilot]

This isn't the point. If they are different, I can't tell, and that's what I'm trying to learn. It's like a discussion we had about affricates a while back - someone said that they almost never contrast phonemically with consonant clusters. Okay, fine, but they are different. I'm trying to learn these distinctions, not learn why they don't matter.

Have you even read what everyone said? Firstly, the difference isn't relevant in all but very few situations. This means that unless you happen to study on a language which happens to have this distinction, it doesn't really matter.

You really want to know the distinction? I think that phonetically, they are very, very close together, if not identical. Articulatory (in how you produce the sound), there's a small difference. For [kʷ], you round your lips while making a [k]. For [kw], you round your lips after making the [k]. These sounds are so close together, that I would be very surprised if a language had this distinction at all (maybe, just maybe some north-american languages, which tend to have series of labialized consonants, but I'd be interested to see some minimal pairs).

I am saying both correctly, and I don't hear a distinction between the two. Here I'll even record it for you

[kʷa] [kwa] http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29498835/kwakwa.wav

[Shrdlu]

I can hear the differences between [k^w] and [kw], but I have problem timing my lip-rounding. I have to really focus to get it right.
What I do is that I round my lips half-way between [k] and [w] to do [kw] and not [k^w], if that is of any help.