Talk:Palatal lateral approximant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Phonetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to phonetics and descriptive phonology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Palatal vs palatalized

Serbocroatian/Slovenian lj/љ is palatalized ([lʲ]), not palatal ([ʎ]) -- a rather small but still audible and consistent difference. (Think of it as a "stronger fusion" of /l/ and /j/ than [ʎ] is.) I bet the same holds for Slovak ľ (it does for Russian ль). Does someone know how ly is pronounced in those Hungarian dialects that haven't made [j] out of it? David Marjanović 23:25 CET-summertime 2005/8/5

Serbian љ is very clearly a palatal lateral (as audibly exemplified in the recorded samples of words such as ljuljaska linked at the article on letter lje), distinct from the palatalized alveolar lateral of Russian ль. As for Hungarian, the nowadays minoritary and non-standard Northern dialects that still keep "ly" distinct from "j" of course pronounce "ly" as a palatal lateral, which was the original sound of that digraph and the very reason for it (a completely analogous spelling to "ny" for the palatal nasal), before Hungarian adopted the yeísta pronunciation of the Budapest region as its standard. 213.37.6.23 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilian Portuguese

I'm a native speaker of Brazilian Portuguese, and we do have this sound (as mentioned in the article). However the sound sample does not represent the sound we recognise as being a palatal lateral approximant. Why is it?

Hi. I contacted the author. Adiel 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Stating that "in most dialects, including the standard, /ʎ/ is pronounced [lj], like English <lli> in "million"" is simply wrong! I've changed this. Adiel 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite confused that Portuguese "lh" is analyzed as this sound, because it sounds darned close to a palatalized [l] to me. If you listen to the sound provided here and compare it with the file "battery.wav" in this zip-file, which is supposed to be a supplement to the section on European Portuguese in the The Handbook of the International Phonetic Association you might see my point. I'm quite used to Russian pronunciation with all its palatalized consonants and I hear much differnce between that and the Portuguese sound. Exactly what feature makes the Russian sounds palatalized and this palatal?
Peter Isotalo 02:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The first site you mentioned (IPA Lab) keeps asking me a password, but I heard the "battery.wav" sound from the zip file: the "lh" in "pilha" sounds very good to me. Actually I don't speak Russian... but listening to the corresponding sound file (for ʎ) in this site, I can tell that that sound is indeed what I hear in "pilha". Listening to your sound file, it sounds to me much like "y" in Engish "yes" or like "i" in Portuguese "saia"; in fact, I can't see any resemblance between your "lh" and a regular "l" :P Thanks. Adiel 15:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That menas you're clicking the link that says you have to be registered. Try the link in the passage "...you may click here to access a limited version of the chart."
My recording is supposed to sound similar to a [j], but it's lateral and the tounge isn't really touching the palate. But it's still very relevant to know how the Portuguese sound is supposed to differ from a palatalized [l].
Peter Isotalo 08:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish

How is the Spanish "ll" different from the Spanish "y"? I've been exposed my whole life to a Central American dialect; is that why I've never heard a difference? Further, listening to the site http://www.paulmeier.com/ipa/consonants.html (if someone can point me to a better place to listen to pronunciations...), I still hear no difference. Nor can I differentiate "m" and "ɱ" there, but I know the difference of those; nor again "ʟ" against yod and "ʎ". --ub3rm4th 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Spanish 'll' is only pronounced as a palatal lateral approximant in some dialects. FilipeS 20:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
For instance the Argentinian dialect? There, the `ll' sounds considerably more like ʒ to me. --ub3rm4th 18:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No, not in the Argentinian dialects. See yeísmo. FilipeS
In castilian dialect, "y" represents [j] and "ll" [ʎ], although this pronounciation is rapidly disappearing confused with [j] or [ʝ]KekoDActyluS 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voicing

Does the palatal lateral approximant have a voiceless counterpart? Do we not make Voiced _ / Voiceless _ pairs of pages? I searched for "voiced palatal lateral approximant" and this was more than six down on the list. --ub3rm4th 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fricative

Is there such thing as a palatal lateral fricative, anywhere in the world of languages?24.21.83.173 02:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy dispute: Brazilian Portuguese

An annonymous editor has made a substantial addition to the article, claiming that:

  1. The palatal lateral approximant is no longer the majority pronunciation of the digraph LH in Brazilian Portuguese.
  2. This pronunciation is becoming disused in Brazilian Portuguese.

No sources were left in the article to support these assertions, and I am challenging them. I have heard that some Brazilian Portuguese speakers pronounce LH as /lj/, but I have no reason to believe in either of the above claims. FilipeS 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometime ago this very same information was stated on this page, and I deleted it. I repeat what I said then: Stating that in most dialects, including the standard, /ʎ/ is pronounced [lj], like English <lli> in "million" is simply wrong!
Just because olhos and óleos are pronounced the same, it does not mean that /ʎ/ has changed to /lj/; it may be that /lj/ was changed into /ʎ/. In fact, that's my perception: the sound in óleos is /ʎ/, not /lj/. The same holds for "li" in família.
I don't think I'm mistaken, but I will try to find the book the article cites. Adiel 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm confused by what you wrote "Just because olhos and óleos are pronounced the same, it does not mean that /ʎ/ has changed to /lj/; it may be that /lj/ was changed into /ʎ/." That's not logical. It's well known that the original sound in Portuguese was /ʎ/. The same as in Spanish, and Catalan, and Italian, among others. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the /lj/ pronunciation. However, it always seemed to me that most Brazilians used /ʎ/, not /lj/; that's why I disputed the claim. But I may be wrong, as I'm not Brazilian myself. It would be great to have some scholarly source to sort this out... Regards. FilipeS 13:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I understand what you mean, now. FilipeS 19:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy dispute: italian vs spanish

i am a native italian speaker, and from hearing spanish, i KNOW for a fact that the spanish 'll' sounds very different from the italian 'GLI', yet the article says both are ʎ. why then are they listed as the same sound? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.203.201 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not all Spanish dialects have this sound. Some of them replace it with a sound that's similar to Italian gi. This is what the note is talking about with the merger with /ʝ/. Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
so, youre saying that in some dialects its ʎ and in some its something else? interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.203.201 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and it's a very well-known and extensively studied phonological phenomenon in modern Spanish, called yeísmo. Most current Spanish speakers are yeístas, i.e. they do not pronounce "ll" as a palatal lateral but as "something else" (what that something else is, varies from dialect to dialect: most commonly /ʝ/, but also /ʒ/ particularly in Rioplatense). However, there are still some areas and pockets of speakers that maintain the traditional distinction between Spanish "ll" and "y" (mainly Bolivians, Paraguayans, Filipinos, some mostly-older speakers from Northern Castile, some of the bilingual speakers of Spanish + Catalan/Basque, plus a few others here and there). Something like 99.9% of the Spanish heard nowadays on the media is yeísta (although there are a few notable media personalities that are not, such as Iñaki Gabilondo and Constantino Romero, but this is most likely to pass by unnoticed to the ears of yeístas), as well as the Spanish commonly heard in almost every major Spanish-speaking city (Madrid, Mexico DF, Buenos Aires, etc.; even in Spanish/Catalan-bilingual Barcelona yeísmo is already widespread when speaking Spanish, even when the same speaker will strictly keep "ll" as a palatal lateral when speaking Catalan because yeísmo is still strongly stigmatized in Catalan very unlike in Spanish). So no surprise the above Italian speaker was surprised to learn Spanish "ll" can be pronounced like Italian "gli" (and in fact this was the prescribed standard pronunciation until only a few decades ago, when the RAE finally lifted the academic stigma from yeísmo—not least because most or all RAE academics are nowadays yeístas themselves). 213.37.6.23 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "turned y"

what evidence that the IPA symbol is in fact a "turned y" (as opposed to a mirrored λ -- after all it expresses an l sound)? The Unicode name doesn't count, since IPA predates Unicode, and the Unicode people made similar blunders before. This question has some importance for font design, since the intended application for "IPA palatal lataral approximant" should trump the Unicode character name. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it make a difference? It turns up the same! FilipeS 19:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
When I asked about it at the IPA talk page earlier, it was claimed it should be left out, due to lack of sources. (ʎ is similar both in appearance and sound value to λ, though.) 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 20:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Not according to Greek phonology. [ʎ] is an allophonic realization of /li/, whereas <λ> is typically pronounced [l]. FilipeS 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote "similar to", I didn't mean "the same as". 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the name is that, before the days of computer fonts, people took existing type faces and rotated them to create new symbols. They already had a y, so that was easy to use. However, creating a mirror image of a letter meant casting new type, and expensive and time-consuming process. — kwami (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arpitan

The Savoy dialect of Arpitan has this phoneme. Please add it.--Sonjaaa (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to include every language that has the sound. Just a few examples. FilipeS (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean there are too many examples at close front unrounded vowel? Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
in my opinion, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.204.91 (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removing sound sample

I'm commenting out the sound sample, after TheMexican2007 noticed it was wrong. It sounds like [j] to me. — kwami (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be very similar to [j], but I can hear a difference between the two sound samples. We should leave it in for now unless this sound sample is completely the wrong sound. It's difficult for anyone to distinguish between a sound they use and a sound they don't use, but that doesn't mean the sample is incorrect. Peridragon (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. The lateralness of it must be extremely faint, though. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] erroneous languages (moved from article)

Please correct Spanish example: it is incorrect or an outlier. As native speaker of Spanish, Russian and Italian, I know that (ru) любовь and (it) famiglia have no relation to either Castillian or South American pronunciation of 'millon'; A closer match would be 'familia'. [User 72.67.230.203, 10:16, 2008 May 22]

This is a sourced example. If Castillian millon is not a palatal lateral, what is it? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)