zompist bboard

I know plosives can have a lateral release to them but can fricatives for example be lateralized in a similar manner it can be palatilized, labialized and Velarized? (I know there are more)

Yes, it's called a lateral fricative, X-SAMPA [K], they appear in Welsh and several languages of the Pacific Northwest. They're usually alveolar, however they have been attested at other POAs. Sometimes children acquiring English use them instead of [s].

"POA"?

Aaahhh good, so all consonants can be laterlized then or?

Zelos wrote:"POA"?

Place of articulation.

Aaahhh good, so all consonants can be laterlized then or?

The "lateral release" only really applies to plosives, as other sounds don't really have a "release". Approximants can be lateral, fricatives can be lateral. (Lateral fricatives often arise, actually, from devoiced lateral approximants. They become fricatives to maximize their auditory salience (perhaps).)

Lateralizing a trill would be difficult; lateralizing a bilabial almost impossible.

Rory wrote:Lateralizing a trill would be difficult; lateralizing a bilabial almost impossible.

This is an alveolar lateral trill and a bilabial lateral, both absent from canIPA.

Canepari wrote:

Rory wrote:Lateralizing a trill would be difficult; lateralizing a bilabial almost impossible.

This is an alveolar lateral trill and a bilabial lateral, both absent from canIPA.

Linguolabial I can see, but I'm not even sure how bilabial would work, I thought lateral was descriptive based on the shape of the tongue (or is it only based on the fact that air escapes from the sides instead of the center?) I have to admit the trill sounds awfully like [r:l], though I can't be certain. I'd like to see video at any rate.

I can't give video samples, but I can tell you that the bilabial lateral is possible. Just let the air escape from the sides of your lips. And my lateral trill, well, let's just say that I did have a short [l] at the end.

The first in this sample is bilabial, and the second is linguolabial. Hear the difference?

Yeah, they're possible, but difficult, and I'd be surprised if any of the world's languages used them. (Referring to lateral trills and bilabials here - linguolabials are well established as existing in several languages.)

Good rule of thumb: Just because you can make a sound doesn't mean that IPA has to be able to transcribe it, nor does it mean that it's a plausible sound for a language to use.

Rory wrote:Yeah, they're possible, but difficult, and I'd be surprised if any of the world's languages used them. (Referring to lateral trills and bilabials here - linguolabials are well established as existing in several languages.)

Good rule of thumb: Just because you can make a sound doesn't mean that IPA has to be able to transcribe it, nor does it mean that it's a plausible sound for a language to use.

I like it and uses it, though the question will I ask for anyone else

Why not? XD

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking why these sounds are not likely to be found in natural languages?

Rory wrote: (Lateral fricatives often arise, actually, from devoiced lateral approximants. They become fricatives to maximize their auditory salience (perhaps).)

In fact in phonetics class we were basically taught that there's no hard-and-fast difference between the two, although it's sort of convention that [ɬ] has lots of friction and [l̥] has like some (it'd be very difficult to hear without any, essentially).