Re: Phonetic Terminology

You've merely reversed the order used by the more common
convention: what you call "alveolar laminal" Catford and
others would call "apico-alveolar"; what you would call
"dental apical" they would call "apico-dental". There's
clearly no advantage to be gained by reversing the order
alone, and there is the disadvantage that it goes against
the more common convention. Actually, personally I don't
really care if you refer to the phones in this way, so
long as it's clear what you intend in each case, but it
was you who insisted this way was better and ought to be
followed by all. We've yet to see any good case for that,
however.

David

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
wrote:

> The system I advocate for clarity is basically triangulation:
>
> 1) organ making contact; and
>
> 2) point of contact.
>
> For the languages we have been discussing, the organ involved, the

tongue, is divided into two areas:

>
> 1) front area = coronal;
>
> 2) back area = dorsal.
>
>
> Coronal is further subdivided into:
>
> 1) tip = apical; and
>
> 2) blade = laminal.
>
>
> The commonest points of contact for coronals are:
>
> 1) teeth = dental;
>
> 2) alveolum = alveolar; and
>
> 3) farther back on the alveolum = post-alveolar.
>
>
> The commonest points of contact for dorsals are:
>
> 1) palate = palatal;
>
> 2) velum = velar; and
>
> 3) farther back on the velum = post-velar.
>
>
>
> Thus, English /t/ is an alveolar coronal, or more specifically, an

alveolar laminal (coronal).

>
> German /t/ is a dental coronal, or more specifically, a dental

apical (coronal).

>
>
> This is the system I prefer; it has the advantage of specified the

method of sound production fairly accurately.

>
>
> Patrick