Re: [tied] The disappearance of *-s -- The saga continues

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:32:35 -0700 (PDT),
enlil@... wrote:

>Miguel:
>> They say the same thing about /r/. They don't even mention
>> alveolars. They're wrong.
>
>But "r" is in many cases in Quebec rolled with the apex of
>your tongue, not just uvular as is the norm in Europe.

Yes. And it's alveolar, not dental.

>> Just as wrong as at another Canadian University
>
>So you're saying that a European University is going to be
>more competent in explaining Canadian French pronunciation?

No, I'm saying that there can be incorrect stuff on
University websites, wherever the University is located.

>Now that's a little presumptious.
>
>> (http://www.lli.ulaval.ca/labo2256/lexique/alveolaire.html),
>> where they claim that "Une consonne alvéolaire a les
>> alvéoles comme lieu d'articulation. [t], [d], [n], [s], [z]
>> et [l] sont des consonnes alvéolaires en français", which is
>> patently untrue for [t] and [d].
>
>Yes, /t/ and /d/ are normally dental. Perhaps however, because
>of the English influence on French that is very much real in
>Canada, that there are some dialect areas where anglicized
>alveolar phonemes are used.

Perhaps. That doesn't justify calling /t/, /d/ alveolar, or
[s], [z], [l] dental "en français". They're usually dental
and alveolar, respectively.


=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...