From: Patrick Ryan
Message: 40181
Date: 2005-09-20
----- Original Message -----
From: "david_russell_watson" <liberty@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 1:46 PM
Subject: The pronunciation of post-velars (was Re: [tied] *kW- "?")
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The uvula is not at all involved in the production of back- or
> > post-velar consonants.
> >
> > Why name it then?
>
> I just went to the mirror and pronounced what I've always
> called a "uvular fricative" and my uvula was clearly bent
> forward, laying in a slight depression at the back of the
> tongue, and clearly part of the obstruction creating the
> necessary turbulence for a fricative.
>
> Why, when recognized phoneticists use 'uvular' and 'post-
> velar' synonymously, do you have such a problem with that
> usage?
>
> David
>
***
Patrick:
1) because traditionally, 'uvular' was restricted to uvular trill, as in
certain German and French /R/s;
2) because post-velar means the same thing without infringing on what
'uvular' used to mean; it is _unnecessary_.
***