We changed our privacy policy. Read more.
17

It's called "l-vocalization" (previous related question: Dark L vs L Vocalisation). A range of sounds can result from it, and because of this and also because of differences in transcriptional practices, the transcription in the International Phonetic Alphabet could vary among [w], [u], [ʊ] [o], [ɤ].


6

There is an unfortunately confusing term "L-vocalization" which refers to the process where l becomes one of w, u, o, e.g. in Serbo-Croatian final l → o. Some dialects of English have this process, so that "milk" is [mɪwk]. The essential difference between one of the vocoids w, u, o and dark l is tip raising, so yes to those two questions. However, "vocalic" ...


6

There is an acoustic similarity between n and l, which have anti-resonances; this makes the consonants sound similar. This is a reasonable common sound change.


4

It is possible to pronounce various kinds of lateral without any vocalic release (the "aspiration" thing -- aspiration actually means something else in phonetics, though it's similar), though without practice, it may seem more natural to say [lə] rather that just [l̩]. Perhaps if you say "bottle" very slowly and just prolongate the l part, and then leave off ...


4

extIPA gives you these options: Voiceless interdental lateral fricative: ɬ̪͆ Voiced interdental lateral fricative: ɮ̪͆ Voiced interdental lateral approximant: l̪͆ However, I find these diacritics a bit of overkill, especially given American English /θ, ð/ are also usually interdental but never transcribed with these diacritics anyway. I bet just [ɬ̪, ɮ̪, ...


4

There is an Alveolar Lateral Trill, it has this symbol; /rˡ/ and there a video of it; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr4_zYBRaWY&api_format=3&vndel=watch&app=desktop


4

From Chapter 2 of Historical Linguistics: An Introduction by Lyle Campbell: (8) In Old French livel (from which English borrowed level), the sequence of two l’s dissimilated, giving nivel, which became Modern French niveau ‘level’ through subsequent sound changes which affected the final l. So there's a [n] <- [l] case!


4

Here a few more: pulë (chicken) - pullë (button), plakë (old woman) - pllakë (plate), plumb (bullet) - pëllumb (dove), lum (river) - llum (dirt, sludge), palë (layer) - pallë (sword), kollë (cough) - Kolë (a shortened form of the male name Nikollë)


4

Djal (boy) and djall (devil) have been the source of some hilarious mix-ups.


4

I've been looking for a functional explanation in the literature, and this apparently isn't a question that has been explored: why is the change from clear to dark l so common? Dark l has a very low F2, and clear l has a higher F2, so it is unlikely that this is acoustically driven. I suspect that it is related to things necessary to articulate a lateral. [...


4

Since the asker has clarified that the language in question is Spanish, the likely explanation is that they are hearing the pronunciation in a dialect that exhibits yeísmo, which causes /j/ and /ʎ/ to be pronounced the same (usually [ʝ]). If that's not the case, what I recommend is finding some minimal pairs in languages that have these phones and listen to ...


3

This is basically a terminological problem. It is sometimes said that there are no lateral plosives, because you don't see any lateral plosive letter in the IPA row for plosives. Plosives are categorized in terms of the place where the constriction is, and "lateral" isn't considered a place, it's termed a "manner". That's not totally inappropriate, since ...


3

The syllabic l (IPA [l̩]) is no different than the ordinary consonant [l] in place of articulation, but takes the place of a vowel in a syllable. The dark l (IPA [ɫ]) is a velarized (or pharyngealized) form of the consonant [l], meaning that back of the tongue simultaneously articulates an [l] and is raised at the velum (or pharynx). Each can exist ...


3

Your interpretation is more or less correct, as long as you are speaking of the initiation of those articulatory gestures and not their completion (the events are roughly simultaneous). Sproat & Fujimura's study using x-ray microbeam tech found that dorsal retraction and lowering begins earlier in dark l compared to light l. The article has a number of ...


2

That would be incorrect, as an albanian speaker surrounded by Albanian speakers, I can testify that 'll' is actually an interdental lateral consonant.


2

I believe that l>n and n>l are rather easily explained through nasalization. Nasalize an 'l' and you get 'n.' Many language families have dialects that vary in degree of nasalization, and this creates an alternation between the two sounds in various dialects. This clearly explains the French case cited above as well as the Algonquian case -- Algonquian ...


2

Coincidentally, the page of Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics (1971) by Peter Ladefoged that I cited recently in my answer to Is there a voiced-unvoiced pair for R or L in any language? actually has something to say about this: Table 33 includes some items labeled lateral stops. In this label it might appear that the term lateral is being used in an ...


1

The Handbook of the International Phonetic Association says (p. 9): Shaded cells occur where the intersection of a manner and a place of articulation define a sound which is thought not to be possible, either by definition (a nasal requires an oral occlusion combined with lowering of the velum, and so a pharyngeal or glottal nasal is ruled out), or because ...


1

In the third volume of his Accents of English (pp.550-1), Wells notes that, in the southern United States, dark /l/ may be realised as velar [ʟ] rather than velarised alveolar [ɫ], especially in the sequence /əl/. I've also heard anecdotal reports of dark /l/ being produced as [ʟ] by speakers from the UK but am not aware of any published work corroborating ...


1

This is a partial answer to the second question whether there is a relation between l and the coronal stops (t, d): Yes there is a connection, and historically sound shifts like d -> l (lambdacism) are attested. They occurred sporadically in Latin, e.g., lingua < dingua "tongue" or lacrima < dacrima "tear" and on a more regular basis in Finno-Ugric ...


1

Pronouncing l without the "finishing off" part: I'm not sure what your native language is, but aspirated approximants are very rare in general, so I doubt your "finishing off" is aspiration. If you are referring to English, the phoneme /l/ is realized as velarized [ɫ] in coda position: so that would be the difference between the /l/ in "hell" [hɛɫ] and the /...


1

The term L-vocalisation is often far divorced from the term dark L, in that they are two totally independent processes. Vocalisation of a consonant is its change into a vowel — any vowel. Aside from the typical English vocalisation of preconsonantal dark L to [u̯], many other avenues of vocalisation exist; Serbo-Croatian vocalisation makes it into a syllabic ...


1

With the possible exception of Ancient Egyptian where no grapheme for "l" existed, the r/l distinction seems to be well-maintained in the Afroasiatic languages. It exists in Semitic, Berber, Chadic, and Cushitic. Also the Coptic language has it.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible