Talk:Lateral consonant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Phonetics   
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Phonetics Task Force.


The Romance examples given for this sound are all wrong. They are pronounced with a [j]-like offglide, so probably [λj] is the correct transcription, maybe with some sophisticated diacritic for the [j]. However, I have no idea what Quechua sounds like.

David Marjanović 2005/9/28 21:47 CET-summertime

Not in Portuguese. 2005/01/24
English velar nasal also has a weak [g] after it when a vowel follows. Hardly anybody includes it in transcriptions though. It's probably just the nature of these consonants. --Helloworlditsme (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Palatal laterals delete[edit]

I have deleted the following. This is not the right place for it. FilipeS 20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Italian gli and Castilian Spanish ll are the palatal lateral approximant [ʎ], which is present as well in Catalan ll, French ill- (in some dialects), Portuguese lh, Quechua ll.
How exactly is it not the right place for it? There is an entire section devoted to exactly this sort of examples.--Wlerin (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lateral plosives?[edit]

The article says plosives are never lateral. What does this mean, and in what sense is it true? Affricates can be lateral, and if there is a lateral affricate, a corresponding lateral plosive could be made as well. For instance, a lateral plosive could be made (perhaps to be transliterated unofficially as tl) that would correspond to the lateral affricate t͜ɬ, as a postalveolar t̠ would correspond to t͡ʃ. Or does the article mean instead that no language distinguishes a lateral plosive phoneme from a central one, not that none can be pronounced?

Then again, as I try to make a lateral tl, it kind of turns out as an affricate anyway... — Eru·tuon 21:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I can make lateral plosive that do not sound affricated. I think the sentence is supposed to mean that no language distinguishes between central(ly released) and lateral(ly released) plosives, because the statement is followed by "and the distinction is meaningless for nasal stops and for consonants articulated in the throat". However, Czech, for example, distinguishes between <tlak> About this sound [tlak]  and <tak> About this sound [tak] . --JorisvS (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the 'tl' in tlak really a single sound? To my Brazilian ears it sounds just as our clusters of a stop with either a flap or an alveolar approximant. (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
It is mostly one sound, though it seems it is often followed by an [l] offglide. Still, the plosive is very clearly laterally released. A cluster of [t]+[l] would sound quite differently from both [tl]+[l] and [tl]. It probably sounds to you (and to most people) like a simple cluster regardless of the exact pronunciation because in your native language (and any other language I know of, for that matter, including Czech), all three are phonemically a sequence of /t/+/l/ (/tl/). --JorisvS (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
This thing of native language influencing your perception is really stressing. A major foreign language acquisition difficulty of mine at present is that Japanese and Portuguese [ts] sound nearly the same as many English [tʰ ~ tˢ], as in taken or tomato, to me (maybe in part because English t is alveolar, and Romance one is denti-alveolar?). If at a fine day in the future I can talk to someone in English (even with IPA skills and all, my pronunciation is still quite laughable), I'm going to have dat accent... Is there some major language that an average Westerner is going to possibly learn that requires you to distinguish [tʰ] from [ts]? Not that my difficulty is so blatant that I wouldn't tell, to say, pizza from theoretical pi[tʰ]a. (talk) 13:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
German does, but its /t/ is nearly always [tʰ], not [tˢ]. Ok, it may be somewhat affricated here and there, but not that often. The distinction is clear. --Helloworlditsme (talk) 04:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
about lateral plosives, I think this guy on youtube uses lateral plosives or affricates instead of postalveolar consonants, in most instances of /ch/, /tr/, /j/ or even /ʃ/ (4:33 "train" [tlɛɪn] or [tlɬɛɪn], 0:53 "nitrogen" [natl(ɬ)ədl(ɮ)ən], 2:44 "temperature" [tɛmpɹətlə], 6:20 "motion" [məʊtlən]). It definitely sounds different to the Czech "tlak" example, where I hear the [l] clearly ([tllak]). --androl (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Many of his sibilants are lateralized. But his /p, t, k/ are not lateral. Ladefoged & Maddieson note that /p/ could be released to the side, but that it's not audibly distinct. — kwami (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)