How common are rhotic approximants?
How common are rhotic approximants?
How common are rhotic approximants (as in most dialects of English)? Specifically, I mean ones which pattern as liquids? (I'm not quite sure if they ever don't actually.)
My main conlang (well, my main naturalistic conlang) has an alveolar approximant that in some environments is realized as an alveolar tap. I'm not sure how naturalistic or common this is.
My main conlang (well, my main naturalistic conlang) has an alveolar approximant that in some environments is realized as an alveolar tap. I'm not sure how naturalistic or common this is.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Perfectly natural. /n r ɾ ɹ l/ have a tendency to merge in any direction. Wikipedia says Farsi has it as an allophone of /ɾ/ before certain consonants, as do certain dialects of Spanish, Portuguese, and Zapotac. I'm using the same rule (as an allophone of /r/) in one of my own conlangs at the moment.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Well that's reassuring, conlang-wise. Linguistics-wise that's somewhat intriguing though. You mentioned [n r ɾ ɹ l], but I'd imagine [d] and [t] to be common as well. In fact, I'm somewhat surprised that [n] is in there. I wonder how and why the nasality creeps in.
- Nortaneous
- Sumerul
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
- Location: the Imperial Corridor
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
common in eurasia and australia, not so common elsewhere
depends on the environment. you'd prob have 4 syllable-initially and r\ syllable-finally
depends on the environment. you'd prob have 4 syllable-initially and r\ syllable-finally
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Yes, [d] can easily become any of [n r ɾ ɹ l], though its change is often more conditioned (whereas [n r ɾ ɹ l] can often intermingle in unconditioned changes). For an example with [n], compare Hebrew ben with Aramaic bar. One of the distinguishing features of Seneca is that historical /r/ became /n/. And the Caananitic article ha- is reconstructed as han with the [n] assimilating to whatever consonant followed.Mike Yams wrote:Well that's reassuring, conlang-wise. Linguistics-wise that's somewhat intriguing though. You mentioned [n r ɾ ɹ l], but I'd imagine [d] and [t] to be common as well. In fact, I'm somewhat surprised that [n] is in there. I wonder how and why the nasality creeps in.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
That's interesting. Isn't Proto-Iroquoian atypical for North America in having /ɹ/, or for that matter a rhotic in general?Zaarin wrote:Yes, [d] can easily become any of [n r ɾ ɹ l], though its change is often more conditioned (whereas [n r ɾ ɹ l] can often intermingle in unconditioned changes). For an example with [n], compare Hebrew ben with Aramaic bar. One of the distinguishing features of Seneca is that historical /r/ became /n/. And the Caananitic article ha- is reconstructed as han with the [n] assimilating to whatever consonant followed.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Atypical, yes, but there are a few non-Iroquoian languages with rhotic consonants scattered across the continent, such as Tunica--which, I believe, is unique for North America in having both /r/ and /l/--Hopi, Cree (which also has ɹ), etc. On the opposite end of the spectrum, most of the languages of the Pacific Northwest have numerous lateral consonants; Tlingit famously has five lateral consonants but no lateral approximant. But it's certainly fair to say that rhotic sounds are rare in North America (discounting uvular fricatives, which are common in the West).Mike Yams wrote:That's interesting. Isn't Proto-Iroquoian atypical for North America in having /ɹ/, or for that matter a rhotic in general?Zaarin wrote:Yes, [d] can easily become any of [n r ɾ ɹ l], though its change is often more conditioned (whereas [n r ɾ ɹ l] can often intermingle in unconditioned changes). For an example with [n], compare Hebrew ben with Aramaic bar. One of the distinguishing features of Seneca is that historical /r/ became /n/. And the Caananitic article ha- is reconstructed as han with the [n] assimilating to whatever consonant followed.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
It is sometimes confusing to give languages the same name as historical people. For a moment there I thought you were saying the guy had a speech impediment...Zaarin wrote:Yes, [d] can easily become any of [n r ɾ ɹ l], though its change is often more conditioned (whereas [n r ɾ ɹ l] can often intermingle in unconditioned changes). For an example with [n], compare Hebrew ben with Aramaic bar. One of the distinguishing features of Seneca is that historical /r/ became /n/. And the Caananitic article ha- is reconstructed as han with the [n] assimilating to whatever consonant followed.Mike Yams wrote:Well that's reassuring, conlang-wise. Linguistics-wise that's somewhat intriguing though. You mentioned [n r ɾ ɹ l], but I'd imagine [d] and [t] to be common as well. In fact, I'm somewhat surprised that [n] is in there. I wonder how and why the nasality creeps in.
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
What about intervocally? I had the idea of varying it in my conlang, depending on the vowels. For instance [iɾa], but [aɹi], or something like that.Nortaneous wrote:depends on the environment. you'd prob have 4 syllable-initially and r\ syllable-finally
(I'm new to the forum; so sorry if I'm bringing up my conlang too much in L&L.)
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Totally forgot about the Greek philosopher; should have clarified "the Seneca language."Salmoneus wrote:It is sometimes confusing to give languages the same name as historical people. For a moment there I thought you were saying the guy had a speech impediment...
I'd expect /ɾ/ intervocaically, and /ɹ/ before some or all consonants. If you go with "some," it will probably be coronals.Mike Yams wrote:What about intervocally? I had the idea of varying it in my conlang, depending on the vowels. For instance [iɾa], but [aɹi], or something like that.Nortaneous wrote:depends on the environment. you'd prob have 4 syllable-initially and r\ syllable-finally
(I'm new to the forum; so sorry if I'm bringing up my conlang too much in L&L.)
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Hopi and Cree contrast their rhotics with /l/ as well, though Hopi's is actually a retroflex fricative, which arguably means that /l/ is the only liquid in the language. The r-l contrast is fairly common in the native languages of California, and is found in Atsugewi, Chimariko, Costanoan, At least some of Takic (Uto-Aztecan), Wintuan, Wiyot (which has a rhotic approximant), Yuman (Kumeyaay apparently contrasts a rhotic approximant with a trill), and Yurok, which has retroflex approximants and rhotic vowels, and may be unique among the languages of the world in having rhotic vowel harmony.Zaarin wrote:Atypical, yes, but there are a few non-Iroquoian languages with rhotic consonants scattered across the continent, such as Tunica--which, I believe, is unique for North America in having both /r/ and /l/--Hopi, Cree (which also has ɹ), etc.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
I stand corrected; I'm not as familiar with the languages of California as I am the languages of the Northwest and Northeast. (Though Wikipedia says some varieties of Hopi have an alveolar flap while others have a retroflex fricative.)CatDoom wrote:Hopi and Cree contrast their rhotics with /l/ as well, though Hopi's is actually a retroflex fricative, which arguably means that /l/ is the only liquid in the language. The r-l contrast is fairly common in the native languages of California, and is found in Atsugewi, Chimariko, Costanoan, At least some of Takic (Uto-Aztecan), Wintuan, Wiyot (which has a rhotic approximant), Yuman (Kumeyaay apparently contrasts a rhotic approximant with a trill), and Yurok, which has retroflex approximants and rhotic vowels, and may be unique among the languages of the world in having rhotic vowel harmony.Zaarin wrote:Atypical, yes, but there are a few non-Iroquoian languages with rhotic consonants scattered across the continent, such as Tunica--which, I believe, is unique for North America in having both /r/ and /l/--Hopi, Cree (which also has ɹ), etc.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
No worries; you almost certainly know more about the languages in those regions than I do. We all have our particular areas of interest.
California languages are really diverse; I wrote a post a while back about areal features in northern and southern California (though the linguistic areas naturally don't correspond to the borders of the state), if you're interested.
California languages are really diverse; I wrote a post a while back about areal features in northern and southern California (though the linguistic areas naturally don't correspond to the borders of the state), if you're interested.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
I'll have to take a look at that too...
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
I think I'll go with [ɾ] word-initially and [ɹ] word-finally and in clusters, with [ɾ] and [ɹ] being in free variation intervocalically, but with [ɾ] being more common.Zaarin wrote:Totally forgot about the Greek philosopher; should have clarified "the Seneca language."Salmoneus wrote:It is sometimes confusing to give languages the same name as historical people. For a moment there I thought you were saying the guy had a speech impediment...
I'd expect /ɾ/ intervocaically, and /ɹ/ before some or all consonants. If you go with "some," it will probably be coronals.Mike Yams wrote:What about intervocally? I had the idea of varying it in my conlang, depending on the vowels. For instance [iɾa], but [aɹi], or something like that.Nortaneous wrote:depends on the environment. you'd prob have 4 syllable-initially and r\ syllable-finally
(I'm new to the forum; so sorry if I'm bringing up my conlang too much in L&L.)
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Just an amateur enthusiast myself, but I find Tlingit and Haida in particular quite fascinating, so I've done some reading on them (mostly in a cultural context rather than a strictly linguistic one). Thanks for the link--it's interesting how opposite Californian languages are to their northern neighbors: presence of labials, absence of labiovelars labio-uvulars, few laterals and more rhotics...Am I correct in my understanding that many Californian languages are grammatically simpler than the infamously polysynthetic languages of the Northwest? This is the impression I've gotten from Mithun, at any rate.CatDoom wrote:No worries; you almost certainly know more about the languages in those regions than I do. We all have our particular areas of interest.
California languages are really diverse; I wrote a post a while back about areal features in northern and southern California (though the linguistic areas naturally don't correspond to the borders of the state), if you're interested.
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
It really depends, but in general Californian languages tend to be pretty agglutinative. In Wappo, a Yukian language, inanimate nouns usually don't take any inflections, animate nouns are marked only for number, and verbs can take one TAM suffix, a suffix for negation, and prefixes for direction and type of motion, somewhat similar to the "instrumental" prefixes found in many languages in the area.
Not far away, however, the Pomoan language Kashaya has two position classes for prefixes and fifteen for suffixes, with some pretty complex morphophonology.
The Utian languages are unusual in the region in that they have a well-developed case system; for the most part nouns in Californian languages take few inflections.
Not far away, however, the Pomoan language Kashaya has two position classes for prefixes and fifteen for suffixes, with some pretty complex morphophonology.
The Utian languages are unusual in the region in that they have a well-developed case system; for the most part nouns in Californian languages take few inflections.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Is that mostly because they're head-marking?
Edit: (Well, reading your post again, Wappo just seems less synthetic. The others I mean.)
Edit: (Well, reading your post again, Wappo just seems less synthetic. The others I mean.)
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
I'm not really sure head-marking languages tend to be more synthetic than dependent-marking languages, though at first glance it does appear to fit. Uralic and Indo-European are generally dependent marking and don't have really extensive verbal inflection, while well-known head-marking languages like Algonquin, Iroquoian, and Salish do. On the other hand you've got languages like Chukchi, Nivkh, Eskimo-Aleut, and Muskogean, which have extensive case systems are are also inflected enough to usually be called polysynthetic. There's also a fairly large number of languages like Quechua, Turkic, Northeast Caucasian, Kartvelian, Sumerian, and Pama-Nyungen that have extensive case systems and extensive verbal inflection without generally crossing over into polysynthesis (except in very inclusionary definitions or those that count extensive suffixaufnahme as polysynthetic).Mike Yams wrote:Is that mostly because they're head-marking?
Edit: (Well, reading your post again, Wappo just seems less synthetic. The others I mean.)
Taking a quick look at WALS, which as always assumes it's a non-biased sample, comparing marking of the clause with categories of verbal inflection:
Code: Select all
Head-marking: 0-1 0% 2-3 2% 4-5 44% 6-7 19% 8-9 23% 10-11 9% 12-13 2%
Double-marking: 0-1 0% 2-3 14% 4-5 31% 6-7 20% 8-9 26% 10-11 6% 12-13 3%
Depend-marking: 0-1 5% 2-3 27% 4-5 38% 6-7 24% 8-9 5% 10-11 0% 12-13 0%
EDIT: And, after all that, I realized I wasn't answering what you were asking. Extensive case systems don't tend to overlap a lot with extensive head-marking, though it certainly happens: Georgian, Burushaski, Koasati, and Chukchi, off the top of my head, have both extensive case and polypersonal agreement. Along with Utian those probably comprise a significant number of the languages that have both.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Mandarin Chinese has a syllable final rhotic that to my ear sounds a lot like /ɹ/ in rhotic English dialects. The Chinese sound is written <r> (as in "Harbin"). On this basis, I've always assumed it is a positional allophone of initial <r>, which is a voiced retroflex sibilant. Wikipedia claims there is also an innovative rhotic realisation of initial <r>, but I don't recall noticing it. Despite the occurence of final /ɹ/ in indigenous Chinese words, I think Chinese people tend to think of final /ɹ/ in English as difficult to pronounce, to the extent that I've heard people who had developed a non-rhotic accent in English despite otherwise targeting American pronunciation.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
I think you mixed up several phenomena:Šọ̈́gala wrote:Mandarin Chinese has a syllable final rhotic that to my ear sounds a lot like /ɹ/ in rhotic English dialects. The Chinese sound is written <r> (as in "Harbin"). On this basis, I've always assumed it is a positional allophone of initial <r>, which is a voiced retroflex sibilant. Wikipedia claims there is also an innovative rhotic realisation of initial <r>, but I don't recall noticing it. Despite the occurence of final /ɹ/ in indigenous Chinese words, I think Chinese people tend to think of final /ɹ/ in English as difficult to pronounce, to the extent that I've heard people who had developed a non-rhotic accent in English despite otherwise targeting American pronunciation.
1) There're 2~3 different <r> in Mandarin, the first is the onset <r->, pronounced [ɻ~ʐ], the second is the rhotic vowel <er>, pronounced [aɻ] in Beijing but [ɚ] in Taipei, the third is the erhua suffix <-r>, pronounced [ɻ] but interacts with the vowel and the original coda of the attached syllable. The third is predominant in northern China but rare to non-existent in the south and in Taiwan.
2) Orthographically, erhua in Pinyin is seldom seen, probably because it's still considered colloquial. Your example is a transliteration of a Manchurian toponym, and the <r> there was originally a trill [r] in Manchurian.
3) From which Wikipedia page? I don't recall any innovative pronunciations.
4) Chinese Americans fail at [ɹ] because their native languages don't have them. IIRC most US-born ethnic Chinese are predominantly from Cantonese, Hakka, or Hokkien-speaking regions where rhotic sounds are absent.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
I was basically ignoring erhua and was thinking of the [aɻ] phoneme as in 哈尔滨、耳朵、而且, etc.. I didn't know that it's [ɚ] in Taiwan, but that seems like the kind of thing that would happen. On this basis, one might exoect that Chinese people with standard mainland accents would have no trouble pronouncing rhotic sounds following [a] and Taiwanese Mandarin speakers would have no trouble with [ɚ].M Mira wrote: I think you mixed up several phenomena:
1) There're 2~3 different <r> in Mandarin, the first is the onset <r->, pronounced [ɻ~ʐ], the second is the rhotic vowel <er>, pronounced [aɻ] in Beijing but [ɚ] in Taipei, the third is the erhua suffix <-r>, pronounced [ɻ] but interacts with the vowel and the original coda of the attached syllable. The third is predominant in northern China but rare to non-existent in the south and in Taiwan.
2) Orthographically, erhua in Pinyin is seldom seen, probably because it's still considered colloquial. Your example is a transliteration of a Manchurian toponym, and the <r> there was originally a trill [r] in Manchurian.
3) From which Wikipedia page? I don't recall any innovative pronunciations.
4) Chinese Americans fail at [ɹ] because their native languages don't have them. IIRC most US-born ethnic Chinese are predominantly from Cantonese, Hakka, or Hokkien-speaking regions where rhotic sounds are absent.
"Harbin" seems to be a fully naturalised Chinese placename at this point, so I think it works as an example a rhotic coda in standard Chinese.
I don't remember which Wikipedia page it was exactly and perhaps I'm misremembering, but in any event you seem to agree that there is a rhotic variant of onset <r->. That's the one that I thought was innovative. I don't remember hearing it (except from some Taiwanese-American kids I used to know, and I wasn't sure if that was interference from their American accent).
I was thinking, not of Chinese-Americans, but of mainland Chinese people that I talked to when I lived there. I'm sure they were all fluent putonghua speakers, and maybe some of them had oddities in their realisation of [aɻ] that I failed to notice, but in general they didn't seem to have difficulty producing all the phones of putonghua.
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
For me, the difference sounds like that mainland Chinese pronounce <er> with their tongues moving up, while we tend to keep the tongues in place. Not sure about the effect on pronouncing English <er> or <-r> though.Šọ̈́gala wrote: I was basically ignoring erhua and was thinking of the [aɻ] phoneme as in 哈尔滨、耳朵、而且, etc.. I didn't know that it's [ɚ] in Taiwan, but that seems like the kind of thing that would happen. On this basis, one might exoect that Chinese people with standard mainland accents would have no trouble pronouncing rhotic sounds following [a] and Taiwanese Mandarin speakers would have no trouble with [ɚ].
I think I was confused by your use of square brackets there. <harbin> is Manchurian romanization, <hā'ěrbīn> is Mandarin pinyin. <-r> is only used to show erhua and I'm not even sure if it's sanctioned or ad-hoc usage, while the full syllable version should be written <er>.Šọ̈́gala wrote: "Harbin" seems to be a fully naturalised Chinese placename at this point, so I think it works as an example a rhotic coda in standard Chinese.
Listened to the Wikipedia and to me [ɻ~ʐ] is a range of free variation, and fricativeness(is this a word?) is not a distinctive feature for <r->.Šọ̈́gala wrote: I don't remember which Wikipedia page it was exactly and perhaps I'm misremembering, but in any event you seem to agree that there is a rhotic variant of onset <r->. That's the one that I thought was innovative. I don't remember hearing it (except from some Taiwanese-American kids I used to know, and I wasn't sure if that was interference from their American accent).
I was referring to the pre-war migrants who were never educated in Mandarin, but now apparently it's not what you meant.Šọ̈́gala wrote: I was thinking, not of Chinese-Americans, but of mainland Chinese people that I talked to when I lived there. I'm sure they were all fluent putonghua speakers, and maybe some of them had oddities in their realisation of [aɻ] that I failed to notice, but in general they didn't seem to have difficulty producing all the phones of putonghua.
Are English final <r> supposed to be pronounced differently from initial <r>, like <l> do? Difference in tongue position, perhaps?
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
Not usually, though I think mine is less labialized word-finally.M Mira wrote:Are English final <r> supposed to be pronounced differently from initial <r>, like <l> do? Difference in tongue position, perhaps?
"But if of ships I now should sing, what ship would come to me,
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
What ship would bear me ever back across so wide a Sea?”
-
- Sanci
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:26 pm
Re: How common are rhotic approximants?
My Chinese friend from Dandong had trouble saying the r in words like pork.