On 8/06/2021 5:57 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:58:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>
>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:29:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:55:19 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>> Le jeudi 3 juin 2021 à 19:21:09 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>>>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 03:56:25 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
>>>>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>>>>>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> timbre
>>>>>>>> entente
>>>>>>>> lignes
>>>>>>>> macedoine
>>>>>>> Are you asking about French words, or English loanwords from French?
>>>>>> French words. Is there any French word with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop in a French accent?
>>>>> What is a nasal stop??
>>>> /n/ /m/ for example.
>>>
>>> I simply call those nasals. The stop element would suggest there are
>>> also nasal fricatives and nasal laterals?
>>
>> There are. Learn some phonetics from a teacher.
>
> Just name the languages and give the symbols. Describe the
> articulation mechanisms.
>
> Note: I'm talking about nasal, not nasalised here.

Is this a real distinction? If we mean a sound during which the velum is
lowered, allowing air to exit via the nose, the same thing is going on
with "nasalized" vowels as with "nasal" stops (commony just called
"nasals").

A [z~] of course is
> physically possible, but I've read about a language in which it
> occurs.

I'd be surprised if this and other intermediate types didn't occur
somewhere, but I haven't heard of one where they contrast phonemically
with their oral counterparts, whereas this is virtually universal with
the stops and not uncommon with the vowels. I'll check Ladefoged &
Maddieson in the morning.

>> There are thousands of languages in the world. Some of them are
>> spoken far from those familiar to you in Europe.
>
> Really?
>

On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 5:04:58 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On 7/06/2021 11:53 p.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 6:51:23 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> >> On 7/06/2021 6:53 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:27:22 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:

> >>> IF YOU QUOTE SOMEONE, DO NOT REMOVE THE IDENTIFICATION
> >>> OF WHOM YOU QUOTE.
> >>>>> It would be simpler to just not drop the r's/
> >>>> Many Americans drop them too. Many more, who ARE rhotic, have very
> >>>> light final r's, not too different from mine, in Dutch.
> >>> But non-rhotic Americans (Deep South, New York, Boston) do not pretend
> >>> that the vowels in the syllables that have lost their r are different from the
> >>> vowels that didn't have an r in the first place.
> >> Where would they do such pretending?
> >> And could you perhaps cite an example of this pretense among the hated
> >> Brits? (You've mentioned ita and Shavian -- is that all you mean by "they"?)
> > In any list of the phonemes of RP.

I remembered another one last night: Wells 1982.

> Oh. Well, here's one:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
>
> in which I read:
>
> "Examples of long vowels: /iː/ in fleece, /uː/ in goose, /eə/ in bear,
> /ɜː/ in nurse and furry, /ɔː/ in north, force and thought, /ɑː/ in
> father and start."
>
> Note particularly the last two. Where is the pretense?
> > Bloomfield's *Language* (1935 British edition) was retranscribed to
> > change the AmE phonemicizations, for instance.

On 2021-06-08 10:02:52 +0000, Ruud Harmsen said:

> Tue, 08 Jun 2021 07:57:04 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
> scribeva:
>
>> Note: I'm talking about nasal, not nasalised here. A [z~] of course is
>> physically possible, but I've read about a language in which it
>> occurs.
>
> Not. Not read. I never leave out essential words, never ever.

I do, often, and "not" is one of the ones I leave out most often.

--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

Tue, 8 Jun 2021 23:16:45 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:

>On 8/06/2021 5:57 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:58:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:29:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:55:19 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>>> Le jeudi 3 juin 2021 à 19:21:09 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>>>>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 03:56:25 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
>>>>>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> timbre
>>>>>>>>> entente
>>>>>>>>> lignes
>>>>>>>>> macedoine
>>>>>>>> Are you asking about French words, or English loanwords from French?
>>>>>>> French words. Is there any French word with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop in a French accent?
>>>>>> What is a nasal stop??
>>>>> /n/ /m/ for example.
>>>>
>>>> I simply call those nasals. The stop element would suggest there are
>>>> also nasal fricatives and nasal laterals?
>>>
>>> There are. Learn some phonetics from a teacher.
>>
>> Just name the languages and give the symbols. Describe the
>> articulation mechanisms.
>>
>> Note: I'm talking about nasal, not nasalised here.
>
>Is this a real distinction?

A nasalized fricative makes sense, especially if it is voiced.
Approximants too, and laterals. A nasal fricative is nonsense, anyway
I could not imagine what the production mechanism should be.

An pulmonic ingressive uvular vibrant is possible. The sound of
snoring, or a pig imitation. I tried to teach that to my
granddaughter, who is a Peppa Pig fan. But she can't do it, she keeps
trying egressive fricatives, and doesn't understand the difference.
Not yet, perhaps.

>If we mean a sound during which the velum is
>lowered, allowing air to exit via the nose, the same thing is going on
>with "nasalized" vowels as with "nasal" stops (commony just called
>"nasals").
>
>A [z~] of course is
>> physically possible, but I've read about a language in which it
>> occurs.
>
>I'd be surprised if this and other intermediate types didn't occur
>somewhere, but I haven't heard of one where they contrast phonemically
>with their oral counterparts, whereas this is virtually universal with
>the stops and not uncommon with the vowels. I'll check Ladefoged &
>Maddieson in the morning.

I checked a site by Ladefoged many years ago, and held a presentation
about it, but it wasn't there.

I just tried [l~], and it sounds weird.

>>> There are thousands of languages in the world. Some of them are
>>> spoken far from those familiar to you in Europe.
>>
>> Really?

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On 9/06/2021 5:55 a.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Tue, 8 Jun 2021 23:16:45 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
> scribeva:
>
>> On 8/06/2021 5:57 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:58:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:29:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:55:19 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>>>> Le jeudi 3 juin 2021 à 19:21:09 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>>>>>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 03:56:25 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
>>>>>>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> timbre
>>>>>>>>>> entente
>>>>>>>>>> lignes
>>>>>>>>>> macedoine
>>>>>>>>> Are you asking about French words, or English loanwords from French?
>>>>>>>> French words. Is there any French word with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop in a French accent?
>>>>>>> What is a nasal stop??
>>>>>> /n/ /m/ for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> I simply call those nasals. The stop element would suggest there are
>>>>> also nasal fricatives and nasal laterals?
>>>>
>>>> There are. Learn some phonetics from a teacher.
>>>
>>> Just name the languages and give the symbols. Describe the
>>> articulation mechanisms.
>>>
>>> Note: I'm talking about nasal, not nasalised here.
>>
>> Is this a real distinction?
>
> A nasalized fricative makes sense, especially if it is voiced.
> Approximants too, and laterals. A nasal fricative is nonsense, anyway
> I could not imagine what the production mechanism should be.

The production mechanism in all these sounds is the same as for the oral
variety. The nasal passages play a purely passive role.

But you haven't explained what you think the distinction is (between
"nasal" and "nasalized").

> An pulmonic ingressive uvular vibrant is possible. The sound of
> snoring, or a pig imitation. I tried to teach that to my
> granddaughter, who is a Peppa Pig fan. But she can't do it, she keeps
> trying egressive fricatives, and doesn't understand the difference.
> Not yet, perhaps.
>
>> If we mean a sound during which the velum is
>> lowered, allowing air to exit via the nose, the same thing is going on
>> with "nasalized" vowels as with "nasal" stops (commony just called
>> "nasals").
>>
>> A [z~] of course is
>>> physically possible, but I've read about a language in which it
>>> occurs.
>>
>> I'd be surprised if this and other intermediate types didn't occur
>> somewhere, but I haven't heard of one where they contrast phonemically
>> with their oral counterparts, whereas this is virtually universal with
>> the stops and not uncommon with the vowels. I'll check Ladefoged &
>> Maddieson in the morning.
>
> I checked a site by Ladefoged many years ago, and held a presentation
> about it, but it wasn't there.
>
> I just tried [l~], and it sounds weird.

Weird, but not impossible.

Ladefoged and Maddieson, under "Nasalized Consonants", mention two major
types: (i) clicks; and (ii) oral continuants (fricatives and
approximants). The latter "occur most often as allophonic variants of
their non-nasalized counterparts", i.e. usually not phonemic, as I
suggested. However, they have examples of apparently contrastive
nasalized /h~/, /w~/ and /β~/ from various African languages.

An interesting point, for which they cite John Ohala (1976): "Voiced
nasalized fricatives are difficult to produce, since to generate
friction at the oral constriction while air is flowing out through the
nasal passage requires a high volume of air flow, and voicing limits
airflow through the glottis." This had occurred to me, and would
probably also explain why a nasalized trilled [r] would be difficult.

>>>> There are thousands of languages in the world. Some of them are
>>>> spoken far from those familiar to you in Europe.
>>>
>>> Really?
>
>

On 9/06/2021 12:14 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 5:04:58 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On 7/06/2021 11:53 p.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 6:51:23 PM UTC-4, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>>> On 7/06/2021 6:53 a.m., Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:27:22 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>
>>>>> IF YOU QUOTE SOMEONE, DO NOT REMOVE THE IDENTIFICATION
>>>>> OF WHOM YOU QUOTE.
>>>>>>> It would be simpler to just not drop the r's/
>>>>>> Many Americans drop them too. Many more, who ARE rhotic, have very
>>>>>> light final r's, not too different from mine, in Dutch.
>>>>> But non-rhotic Americans (Deep South, New York, Boston) do not pretend
>>>>> that the vowels in the syllables that have lost their r are different from the
>>>>> vowels that didn't have an r in the first place.
>>>> Where would they do such pretending?
>>>> And could you perhaps cite an example of this pretense among the hated
>>>> Brits? (You've mentioned ita and Shavian -- is that all you mean by "they"?)
>>> In any list of the phonemes of RP.
>
> I remembered another one last night: Wells 1982.

That's nice. Did you "remember" the one I actually cited below?

>> Oh. Well, here's one:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
>>
>> in which I read:
>>
>> "Examples of long vowels: /iː/ in fleece, /uː/ in goose, /eə/ in bear,
>> /ɜː/ in nurse and furry, /ɔː/ in north, force and thought, /ɑː/ in
>> father and start."
>>
>> Note particularly the last two. Where is the pretense?

>>> Bloomfield's *Language* (1935 British edition) was retranscribed to
>>> change the AmE phonemicizations, for instance.

Wed, 9 Jun 2021 09:40:21 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:

>On 9/06/2021 5:55 a.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> Tue, 8 Jun 2021 23:16:45 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
>> scribeva:
>>
>>> On 8/06/2021 5:57 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>> Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:58:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:29:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:55:19 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>>>>> Le jeudi 3 juin 2021 à 19:21:09 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>>>>>>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 03:56:25 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
>>>>>>>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> timbre
>>>>>>>>>>> entente
>>>>>>>>>>> lignes
>>>>>>>>>>> macedoine
>>>>>>>>>> Are you asking about French words, or English loanwords from French?
>>>>>>>>> French words. Is there any French word with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop in a French accent?
>>>>>>>> What is a nasal stop??
>>>>>>> /n/ /m/ for example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply call those nasals. The stop element would suggest there are
>>>>>> also nasal fricatives and nasal laterals?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are. Learn some phonetics from a teacher.
>>>>
>>>> Just name the languages and give the symbols. Describe the
>>>> articulation mechanisms.
>>>>
>>>> Note: I'm talking about nasal, not nasalised here.
>>>
>>> Is this a real distinction?
>>
>> A nasalized fricative makes sense, especially if it is voiced.
>> Approximants too, and laterals. A nasal fricative is nonsense, anyway
>> I could not imagine what the production mechanism should be.
>
>The production mechanism in all these sounds is the same as for the oral
>variety. The nasal passages play a purely passive role.

So the phones are nasalised, not nasal. Let's keep using proper
terminology.

>But you haven't explained what you think the distinction is (between
>"nasal" and "nasalized").

Sigh. Nuff said. No hope for you.

Nasalized means an ADDITIONAL channel of airflow, as in "the nasalised
vowels of French, Portuguese and Polish". Ever heard of that?
Additional as in "in addition to oral".

"Nasal" means ONLY nasal, NOT oral. Like m, n, ny, ng, N.
Is that really so difficult? They occur in a lot of languages. Navaho
for example.

>> An pulmonic ingressive uvular vibrant is possible. The sound of
>> snoring, or a pig imitation. I tried to teach that to my
>> granddaughter, who is a Peppa Pig fan. But she can't do it, she keeps
>> trying egressive fricatives, and doesn't understand the difference.
>> Not yet, perhaps.
>>
>>> If we mean a sound during which the velum is
>>> lowered, allowing air to exit via the nose, the same thing is going on
>>> with "nasalized" vowels as with "nasal" stops (commony just called
>>> "nasals").
>>>
>>> A [z~] of course is
>>>> physically possible, but I've read about a language in which it
>>>> occurs.
>>>
>>> I'd be surprised if this and other intermediate types didn't occur
>>> somewhere, but I haven't heard of one where they contrast phonemically
>>> with their oral counterparts, whereas this is virtually universal with
>>> the stops and not uncommon with the vowels. I'll check Ladefoged &
>>> Maddieson in the morning.
>>
>> I checked a site by Ladefoged many years ago, and held a presentation
>> about it, but it wasn't there.
>>
>> I just tried [l~], and it sounds weird.
>
>Weird, but not impossible.

Ugly. Boring, nagging, unpleasant.

>Ladefoged and Maddieson, under "Nasalized Consonants", mention two major
>types: (i) clicks; and (ii) oral continuants (fricatives and
>approximants). The latter "occur most often as allophonic variants of
>their non-nasalized counterparts", i.e. usually not phonemic, as I
>suggested. However, they have examples of apparently contrastive
>nasalized /h~/, /w~/ and /?~/ from various African languages.

The Dutch political party D66, normallly pronounced [de:zEs@n'sEst@X],
<dee zessenzestig>, is reduced by some tired commentators to
[de:zeh~n'sEst@X], (the n is syllabic), with a nasalised voiced [h].
Unique and very strange.

>An interesting point, for which they cite John Ohala (1976): "Voiced
>nasalized fricatives are difficult to produce, since to generate
>friction at the oral constriction while air is flowing out through the
>nasal passage requires a high volume of air flow, and voicing limits
>airflow through the glottis." This had occurred to me, and would
>probably also explain why a nasalized trilled [r] would be difficult.

Yes, quite agree.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On 9/06/2021 10:41 a.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> Wed, 9 Jun 2021 09:40:21 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
> scribeva:
>
>> On 9/06/2021 5:55 a.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> Tue, 8 Jun 2021 23:16:45 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
>>> scribeva:
>>>
>>>> On 8/06/2021 5:57 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Mon, 7 Jun 2021 09:58:02 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> scribeva:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:29:41 AM UTC-4, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 11:55:19 -0700 (PDT): Arnaud Fournet
>>>>>>> <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> scribeva:
>>>>>>>> Le jeudi 3 juin 2021 à 19:21:09 UTC+2, Ruud Harmsen a écrit :
>>>>>>>>> Thu, 3 Jun 2021 03:56:25 -0700 (PDT): Dingbat
>>>>>>>>> <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> scribeva:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 1:24:51 AM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> timbre
>>>>>>>>>>>> entente
>>>>>>>>>>>> lignes
>>>>>>>>>>>> macedoine
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you asking about French words, or English loanwords from French?
>>>>>>>>>> French words. Is there any French word with a nasal vowel followed by a nasal stop in a French accent?
>>>>>>>>> What is a nasal stop??
>>>>>>>> /n/ /m/ for example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply call those nasals. The stop element would suggest there are
>>>>>>> also nasal fricatives and nasal laterals?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are. Learn some phonetics from a teacher.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just name the languages and give the symbols. Describe the
>>>>> articulation mechanisms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: I'm talking about nasal, not nasalised here.
>>>>
>>>> Is this a real distinction?
>>>
>>> A nasalized fricative makes sense, especially if it is voiced.
>>> Approximants too, and laterals. A nasal fricative is nonsense, anyway
>>> I could not imagine what the production mechanism should be.
>>
>> The production mechanism in all these sounds is the same as for the oral
>> variety. The nasal passages play a purely passive role.
>
> So the phones are nasalised, not nasal. Let's keep using proper
> terminology.

We haven't established what "proper terminology" is yet. I suggest that
the two words are commonly used with the same meaning.

>> But you haven't explained what you think the distinction is (between
>> "nasal" and "nasalized").
>
> Sigh. Nuff said. No hope for you.
>
> Nasalized means an ADDITIONAL channel of airflow, as in "the nasalised
> vowels of French, Portuguese and Polish". Ever heard of that?
> Additional as in "in addition to oral".
>
> "Nasal" means ONLY nasal, NOT oral. Like m, n, ny, ng, N.
> Is that really so difficult? They occur in a lot of languages. Navaho
> for example.

So in other words you would "nasal (stop)" for the stop type, and
"nasalized" for all others. This would be common usage. But as I pointed
out, what happens in articulatory terms is exactly the same in all cases.

It also explains your incredulity about the existence of nasal
fricatives and laterals, since they would be a contradiction in terms.

>>> An pulmonic ingressive uvular vibrant is possible. The sound of
>>> snoring, or a pig imitation. I tried to teach that to my
>>> granddaughter, who is a Peppa Pig fan. But she can't do it, she keeps
>>> trying egressive fricatives, and doesn't understand the difference.
>>> Not yet, perhaps.
>>>
>>>> If we mean a sound during which the velum is
>>>> lowered, allowing air to exit via the nose, the same thing is going on
>>>> with "nasalized" vowels as with "nasal" stops (commony just called
>>>> "nasals").
>>>>
>>>> A [z~] of course is
>>>>> physically possible, but I've read about a language in which it
>>>>> occurs.
>>>>
>>>> I'd be surprised if this and other intermediate types didn't occur
>>>> somewhere, but I haven't heard of one where they contrast phonemically
>>>> with their oral counterparts, whereas this is virtually universal with
>>>> the stops and not uncommon with the vowels. I'll check Ladefoged &
>>>> Maddieson in the morning.
>>>
>>> I checked a site by Ladefoged many years ago, and held a presentation
>>> about it, but it wasn't there.
>>>
>>> I just tried [l~], and it sounds weird.
>>
>> Weird, but not impossible.
>
> Ugly. Boring, nagging, unpleasant.

I guess that's why people don't use it, then.

>> Ladefoged and Maddieson, under "Nasalized Consonants", mention two major
>> types: (i) clicks; and (ii) oral continuants (fricatives and
>> approximants). The latter "occur most often as allophonic variants of
>> their non-nasalized counterparts", i.e. usually not phonemic, as I
>> suggested. However, they have examples of apparently contrastive
>> nasalized /h~/, /w~/ and /?~/ from various African languages.
>
> The Dutch political party D66, normallly pronounced [de:zEs@n'sEst@X],
> <dee zessenzestig>, is reduced by some tired commentators to
> [de:zeh~n'sEst@X], (the n is syllabic), with a nasalised voiced [h].
> Unique and very strange.
>
>> An interesting point, for which they cite John Ohala (1976): "Voiced
>> nasalized fricatives are difficult to produce, since to generate
>> friction at the oral constriction while air is flowing out through the
>> nasal passage requires a high volume of air flow, and voicing limits
>> airflow through the glottis." This had occurred to me, and would
>> probably also explain why a nasalized trilled [r] would be difficult.
>
> Yes, quite agree.
>

>> "Nasal" means ONLY nasal, NOT oral. Like m, n, ny, ng, N.
>> Is that really so difficult? They occur in a lot of languages. Navaho
>> for example.

Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:23:10 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:
>So in other words you would "nasal (stop)" for the stop type, and
>"nasalized" for all others. This would be common usage. But as I pointed
>out, what happens in articulatory terms is exactly the same in all cases.

No, it is not.

For a nasal, the oral tract is closed and the nasal tract is open.

For non-nasalised oral sounds, the oral is open (or closed, then open:
a plosive: or somewhat restricted: a fricative), and the nasal tract
is closed.

For nasalisation, the oral and nasal tracts are BOTH open. The valve
that governs that, somewhere in the back of the velum, has to be held
in an intermediate position to achieve that. People with a language
without nasalisation tend to find that difficult. E.g. most Dutch
speakers use the same diphthong twice, in "São Paulo". (Unless they
make the first element two syllables, Saa-oo.) They cannot be taught
or persuaded to differentiate by nasalisation.

So nasals are common, every language has them. Nasalised realisations
are much rarer, only a minority of languages have them (allophonic or
phonemic), and they require special articulatory skills (which of
course native speaker acquire in childhood and then no longer find
hard at all).

>It also explains your incredulity about the existence of nasal
>fricatives and laterals, since they would be a contradiction in terms.

Right. That's what I'm saying all the time.

On 9/06/2021 6:50 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> "Nasal" means ONLY nasal, NOT oral. Like m, n, ny, ng, N.
>>> Is that really so difficult? They occur in a lot of languages. Navaho
>>> for example.
>
> Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:23:10 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
> scribeva:
>> So in other words you would "nasal (stop)" for the stop type, and
>> "nasalized" for all others. This would be common usage. But as I pointed
>> out, what happens in articulatory terms is exactly the same in all cases.
>
> No, it is not.

The phonetic feature which is common to all these sounds, and which
explains the use of the term "nasal stop", is the openness of the nasal
passage.

> For a nasal, the oral tract is closed and the nasal tract is open.
>
> For non-nasalised oral sounds, the oral is open (or closed, then open:
> a plosive: or somewhat restricted: a fricative), and the nasal tract
> is closed. > For nasalisation, the oral and nasal tracts are BOTH open. The valve
> that governs that, somewhere in the back of the velum, has to be held
> in an intermediate position to achieve that.

All you are doing is re-wording your decision to use "nasal" only for
the stop class and "nasalized" for all the rest. (Do you have evidence
for the claim about "intermediate position"?)

People with a language
> without nasalisation tend to find that difficult. E.g. most Dutch
> speakers use the same diphthong twice, in "São Paulo". (Unless they
> make the first element two syllables, Saa-oo.) They cannot be taught
> or persuaded to differentiate by nasalisation.
>
> So nasals are common, every language has them. Nasalised realisations
> are much rarer, only a minority of languages have them (allophonic or
> phonemic), and they require special articulatory skills (which of
> course native speaker acquire in childhood and then no longer find
> hard at all).

Only a minority have phonemic nasalized vowels, but for allophonic I
would not be so sure.
No doubt it's significant that the two classes of nasal(ized) sounds
which occur with some frequency as phonemes are those with the extremes
of oral air flow: stops (none) and vowels (maximum). It looks as if the
intermediate types are rare, first because of actual articulatory
difficulties as discussed, and I think because they are likely to be
acoustically too close to their oral neighbours to be functional -- e.g.
[l~] too easily confused with either [n] or [l]. Just a guess.
(Clicks are a special case -- I didn't look at the full discussion of
them by L&M but they point out that the velaric-ingressive mechanism
that produces clicks is anterior to the velic opening, which may make it
easier to independently manipulate its opening or closure.)

>> It also explains your incredulity about the existence of nasal
>> fricatives and laterals, since they would be a contradiction in terms.
>
> Right. That's what I'm saying all the time.

Unfortunately you phrased your question in such a way as to suggest that
you had two different phonetic features in mind, either of which could
be combined with laterals, fricatives, etc.

>On 9/06/2021 6:50 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> For a nasal, the oral tract is closed and the nasal tract is open.
>>
>> For non-nasalised oral sounds, the oral is open (or closed, then open:
>> a plosive: or somewhat restricted: a fricative), and the nasal tract
>> is closed. > For nasalisation, the oral and nasal tracts are BOTH open. The valve
>> that governs that, somewhere in the back of the velum, has to be held
>> in an intermediate position to achieve that.

Wed, 9 Jun 2021 22:06:31 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:
>All you are doing is re-wording your decision to use "nasal" only for
>the stop class and "nasalized" for all the rest. (Do you have evidence
>for the claim about "intermediate position"?)

What do you mean? That it can be 30/70%, 60/40%, in addition to
50/50%? Yes it probably can. But how relevant is that?

What matters is that for a nasalised vowel, the air flows in part
through the nasal passage and in part through the oral passage.

>(Clicks are a special case -- I didn't look at the full discussion of
>them by L&M but they point out that the velaric-ingressive mechanism
>that produces clicks is anterior to the velic opening, which may make it
>easier to independently manipulate its opening or closure.)
>
>
>>> It also explains your incredulity about the existence of nasal
>>> fricatives and laterals, since they would be a contradiction in terms.
>>
>> Right. That's what I'm saying all the time.
>
>Unfortunately you phrased your question in such a way as to suggest that
>you had two different phonetic features in mind, either of which could
>be combined with laterals, fricatives, etc.

I have no idea what you mean.

Hasn't all this been pretty standard and straightforward for about a
150 years? Did I invent this, in a totally new way? I don't think so.
I was 16 when I first read about the nasalised vowels of Polish, in a
Dutch encyclopedia my uncle had. Before that I thought they were
unique to French.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On 2021-06-09 00:50, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> "Nasal" means ONLY nasal, NOT oral. Like m, n, ny, ng, N.
>>> Is that really so difficult? They occur in a lot of languages. Navaho
>>> for example.
>
> Wed, 9 Jun 2021 12:23:10 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
> scribeva:
>> So in other words you would "nasal (stop)" for the stop type, and
>> "nasalized" for all others. This would be common usage. But as I pointed
>> out, what happens in articulatory terms is exactly the same in all cases.
>
> No, it is not.
>
> For a nasal, the oral tract is closed and the nasal tract is open.
>
> For non-nasalised oral sounds, the oral is open (or closed, then open:
> a plosive: or somewhat restricted: a fricative), and the nasal tract
> is closed.
>
> For nasalisation, the oral and nasal tracts are BOTH open. The valve
> that governs that, somewhere in the back of the velum, has to be held
> in an intermediate position to achieve that.

??

Your velum isn't a valve which switches between oral and nasal and has
an "intermediate position" for both. Lowering the velum allows access to
the nasal cavity. Raising it blocks that access. Neither of these
positions affects access to the oral cavity.

André

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2021-06-01 19:55:18 +0000, Ruud Harmsen said:
>
>> Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:23:14 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
>> <antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>>> In Galicia there are a number of streets named after a man whose surname
>>> was La Reina. When the time came to restore native place names, a number of
>>> those were converted into 'da raíña'*.
>
> You've sent me off on a tangent with this comment. There is a prominent
> Chilean family called Larraín, and an up-market comuna of Santiago
> called La Reina (where the late unlamented Erich Honecker spent his
> declining years). I had sometimes wondered if the slight similarity of
> names had any significance, but apparently not: La Reina means what it
> looks as if it means, and Larraín is of Basque rather than Galician
> origin.

Apparently there's a handful of places called something like 'La Rein' in
Spain, but those were reanalyzed from a basque original, while the basque
word itself comes from latin:
https://vasco-romance.blogspot.com/2016/08/euskera-larrain-era.html?m=1

>>>
>>> (*} Portuguese doesn't mark stress when it falls on a hiatus vowel before
>>> -nh-, which is an exception, albeit a logical one -
>>
>> Yes. I clearly remember having learnt that from you. And here.
>>
>>> according to our
>>> phonology there cannot be a stressed diphthong in those circumstances. But,
>>> in a display of incoherence, we don't apply the same reasoning to -lh-, so
>>> _faúlha_. It applies to few words anyway. The galician official standard
>>> simply copies the rules of spanish, which relies on context much less than
>>> portuguese, as befits their own phonology.
>>
>> Befits, yes. Nice word. Difficult to translate, into some languages.
>
>

On 10/06/2021 7:21 a.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> On 9/06/2021 6:50 p.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>> For a nasal, the oral tract is closed and the nasal tract is open.
>>>
>>> For non-nasalised oral sounds, the oral is open (or closed, then open:
>>> a plosive: or somewhat restricted: a fricative), and the nasal tract
>>> is closed. > For nasalisation, the oral and nasal tracts are BOTH open. The valve
>>> that governs that, somewhere in the back of the velum, has to be held
>>> in an intermediate position to achieve that.
>
> Wed, 9 Jun 2021 22:06:31 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
> scribeva:
>> All you are doing is re-wording your decision to use "nasal" only for
>> the stop class and "nasalized" for all the rest. (Do you have evidence
>> for the claim about "intermediate position"?)
>
> What do you mean? That it can be 30/70%, 60/40%, in addition to
> 50/50%? Yes it probably can. But how relevant is that?

You said: "The valve that governs that, somewhere in the back of the
velum, has to be held in an intermediate position to achieve that."

This suggests a difference between the nasal-opening in nasal stops and
that in nasalized vowels. I suspect that we have little fine control
over the velic opening; you have to be able to open it in order to
breathe if your mouth is closed, and close it for other purposes, but
beyond "open/closed" any difference in the aperture is probably
automatic, depending on the airflow. I thought you might know of some
experimental evidence to the contrary.

> What matters is that for a nasalised vowel, the air flows in part
> through the nasal passage and in part through the oral passage.
>
>> (Clicks are a special case -- I didn't look at the full discussion of
>> them by L&M but they point out that the velaric-ingressive mechanism
>> that produces clicks is anterior to the velic opening, which may make it
>> easier to independently manipulate its opening or closure.)
>>
>>
>>>> It also explains your incredulity about the existence of nasal
>>>> fricatives and laterals, since they would be a contradiction in terms.
>>>
>>> Right. That's what I'm saying all the time.
>>
>> Unfortunately you phrased your question in such a way as to suggest that
>> you had two different phonetic features in mind, either of which could
>> be combined with laterals, fricatives, etc.
>
> I have no idea what you mean.
>
> Hasn't all this been pretty standard and straightforward for about a
> 150 years? Did I invent this, in a totally new way? I don't think so.
> I was 16 when I first read about the nasalised vowels of Polish, in a
> Dutch encyclopedia my uncle had. Before that I thought they were
> unique to French.

I wouldn't say it's been standard and straightforward in the way you
want it. Let's look:

OED
nasal (adj.) 2a. Of a speech sound: that involves in its articulation,
to a greater or less degree, lowering of the soft palate and a
consequent audible flow of air through the cavity of the nose.

(citations 1666-1936, all referring to nasal consonants; one in 1991
referring to "nasal vowels" in French)

nasalized (adj.) Of a speech sound: articulated in a nasal manner under
the influence of a neighbouring nasal sound.

(citations from 1817 (notations for "modifications of sound")
1859 ("strongly-nasalized sound", language not specified)
1905 (vowels in English, i.e. allophonic)
1950 (vowels in Haitian Creole -- contrastive)
1997 (vowel in AAVE - ??)

So "nasal" has quite a long history of referring to the sounds that
everybody is familiar with, but in modern times can also be used for the
French/Polish/Portuguese etc vowels.
"Nasalized" begins somewhat later, apparently at first used only of
vowels so modified (synchronically or historically) by an adjacent nasal
consonant, but can now be used for any vowel with this feature, whether
or not we know its history.

This might seem confusing, but it is not really, since throughout we are
talking about the _same_ phonetic feature.

On modern usage:

nasal (-ized, -ization, -ity) A term used in the phonetic classification
of speech sounds...sounds produced while the soft palate is
lowered...Both consonants and vowels may be articulated in this way....
(Crystal, Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, 4th ed. (1997))
[Note: "Nasal" and "nasalized" as a single headword]

nasality: The presence of nasal airflow in speech sounds, namely nasal
stops and nasalized vowels.
(Carr, A Glossary of Phonology (2008))

Note, in the last, the convention of using "nasal" with stops and
"nasalized" with vowels remains, but they are recognized as the same
feature.

If we wanted to simplify usage, we might reserve "nasalized" for use
when we are focused on a process (synchronic or historical) by which the
segment has acquired the nasal feature. So it would not be used in a
general discussion of sound-types.

>On 10/06/2021 7:21 a.m., Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> What do you mean? That it can be 30/70%, 60/40%, in addition to
>> 50/50%? Yes it probably can. But how relevant is that?

Thu, 10 Jun 2021 13:12:53 +1200: Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz>
scribeva:
>You said: "The valve that governs that, somewhere in the back of the
>velum, has to be held in an intermediate position to achieve that."
>
>This suggests a difference between the nasal-opening in nasal stops and
>that in nasalized vowels. I suspect that we have little fine control
>over the velic opening; you have to be able to open it in order to
>breathe if your mouth is closed, and close it for other purposes, but
>beyond "open/closed" any difference in the aperture is probably
>automatic, depending on the airflow. I thought you might know of some
>experimental evidence to the contrary.

Yes, you're right. The closure of the mount during a nasal like [n],
[m], [N] is not done with the soft palate, but at the lips, tongue
etc. The remaining cavity of the mouth is also open, which causes some
additional resonance. (Not much: I expect prolongued nasals are hard
to distinguish from each other; their recognition is largely done
based on their onset and offset, by the colouring of adjacent phones.

>> What matters is that for a nasalised vowel, the air flows in part
>> through the nasal passage and in part through the oral passage.

So indeed I was wrong: there is no intermediate position. The fact
that many Dutch speakers find it hard to produce nasalised vowels (or
nasal vowels if you will) is probably that they tend to close the oral
passage somewhere automatically, out of habit, every time the nasal
passage is open.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:00:41 -0600: Ymir <agisaak@gm.invalid> scribeva:
>Your velum isn't a valve which switches between oral and nasal and has
>an "intermediate position" for both. Lowering the velum allows access to
>the nasal cavity. Raising it blocks that access. Neither of these
>positions affects access to the oral cavity.

Yes, you're right, I now see that too. That was a mistake I made.

Perhaps in the rare uvular nasal (that's [N], not in
Krishenbaum/XSampa, but as real IPA) it does work as a valve? That
would be the exception.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

On 2021-06-10 00:49:31 +0000, António Marques said:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2021-06-01 19:55:18 +0000, Ruud Harmsen said:
>>
>>> Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:23:14 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
>>> <antonioprm@sapo.pt> scribeva:
>>>> In Galicia there are a number of streets named after a man whose surname
>>>> was La Reina. When the time came to restore native place names, a number of
>>>> those were converted into 'da raíña'*.
>>
>> You've sent me off on a tangent with this comment. There is a prominent
>> Chilean family called Larraín, and an up-market comuna of Santiago
>> called La Reina (where the late unlamented Erich Honecker spent his
>> declining years). I had sometimes wondered if the slight similarity of
>> names had any significance, but apparently not: La Reina means what it
>> looks as if it means, and Larraín is of Basque rather than Galician
>> origin.
>
> Apparently there's a handful of places called something like 'La Rein' in
> Spain, but those were reanalyzed from a basque original, while the basque
> word itself comes from latin:
> https://vasco-romance.blogspot.com/2016/08/euskera-larrain-era.html?m=1

Thanks. Interesting.
>
>
>>>>
>>>> (*} Portuguese doesn't mark stress when it falls on a hiatus vowel before
>>>> -nh-, which is an exception, albeit a logical one -
>>>
>>> Yes. I clearly remember having learnt that from you. And here.
>>>
>>>> according to our
>>>> phonology there cannot be a stressed diphthong in those circumstances. But,
>>>> in a display of incoherence, we don't apply the same reasoning to -lh-, so
>>>> _faúlha_. It applies to few words anyway. The galician official standard
>>>> simply copies the rules of spanish, which relies on context much less than
>>>> portuguese, as befits their own phonology.
>>>
>>> Befits, yes. Nice word. Difficult to translate, into some languages.

--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years

Le jeudi 10 juin 2021 à 09:22:43 UTC+2, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2021-06-10 00:49:31 +0000, António Marques said:
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >> On 2021-06-01 19:55:18 +0000, Ruud Harmsen said:
> >>
> >>> Tue, 1 Jun 2021 16:23:14 -0000 (UTC): António Marques
> >>> <anton...@sapo.pt> scribeva:
> >>>> In Galicia there are a number of streets named after a man whose surname
> >>>> was La Reina. When the time came to restore native place names, a number of
> >>>> those were converted into 'da raíña'*.
> >>
> >> You've sent me off on a tangent with this comment. There is a prominent
> >> Chilean family called Larraín, and an up-market comuna of Santiago
> >> called La Reina (where the late unlamented Erich Honecker spent his
> >> declining years). I had sometimes wondered if the slight similarity of
> >> names had any significance, but apparently not: La Reina means what it
> >> looks as if it means, and Larraín is of Basque rather than Galician
> >> origin.
> >
> > Apparently there's a handful of places called something like 'La Rein' in
> > Spain, but those were reanalyzed from a basque original, while the basque
> > word itself comes from latin:
> > https://vasco-romance.blogspot.com/2016/08/euskera-larrain-era.html?m=1
> Thanks. Interesting.

Be careful.
Octavià Alexandre, the owner of the blog, is an incompetent troll.

Thu, 10 Jun 2021 07:40:15 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:00:41 -0600: Ymir <agisaak@gm.invalid> scribeva:
>>Your velum isn't a valve which switches between oral and nasal and has
>>an "intermediate position" for both. Lowering the velum allows access to
>>the nasal cavity. Raising it blocks that access. Neither of these
>>positions affects access to the oral cavity.
>
>Yes, you're right, I now see that too. That was a mistake I made.

This was my thread starting article,
https://rudhar.com/fonetics/nasstrng.htm, in which I wrote:
==
Iste distinction, que occurre in tote le linguas, es controlate per un
valvula detra in le bucca. In position alte, le valvula aperi le bucca
e claude le naso, in position basse illo aperi le naso e claude le
bucca. Ma anque un position intermedie es possibile, que causa que le
aere flue e via le bucca e via le naso. Le resulta es un vocal nasal.
==

Obviously, that was factually incorrect too. I'll correct it ASAP.
Why didn't anybody notice that right away? The article is 42 days old,
and so is the thread. O yes, well, the answer to any question, as
everybody knows, is 42, always. That explains it.

>Perhaps in the rare uvular nasal (that's [N], not in
>Krishenbaum/XSampa, but as real IPA) it does work as a valve? That
>would be the exception.

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com

Fri, 11 Jun 2021 20:06:14 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
scribeva:

>Thu, 10 Jun 2021 07:40:15 +0200: Ruud Harmsen <rh@rudhar.com>
>scribeva:
>
>>Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:00:41 -0600: Ymir <agisaak@gm.invalid> scribeva:
>>>Your velum isn't a valve which switches between oral and nasal and has
>>>an "intermediate position" for both. Lowering the velum allows access to
>>>the nasal cavity. Raising it blocks that access. Neither of these
>>>positions affects access to the oral cavity.
>>
>>Yes, you're right, I now see that too. That was a mistake I made.
>
>This was my thread starting article,
>https://rudhar.com/fonetics/nasstrng.htm, in which I wrote:
>==
>Iste distinction, que occurre in tote le linguas, es controlate per un
>valvula detra in le bucca. In position alte, le valvula aperi le bucca
>e claude le naso, in position basse illo aperi le naso e claude le
>bucca. Ma anque un position intermedie es possibile, que causa que le
>aere flue e via le bucca e via le naso. Le resulta es un vocal nasal.
>==
>
>Obviously, that was factually incorrect too. I'll correct it ASAP.

Done:
https://rudhar.com/new#20210612
https://rudhar.com/new#20210430
https://rudhar.com/fonetics/nasstrng.htm
https://rudhar.com/fonetics/nasstrng.htm#Correction

--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com