Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site iuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!iubugs!iuvax!reilly
From: reilly@iuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Double 'R'
Message-ID: <7100021@iuvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Nov-85 23:18:00 EST
Article-I.D.: iuvax.7100021
Posted: Fri Nov 15 23:18:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Nov-85 03:20:15 EST
References: <2176@brl-tgr.UUCP>
Lines: 10
Nf-ID: #R:brl-tgr:-217600:iuvax:7100021:000:564
Nf-From: iuvax!reilly    Nov 15 23:18:00 1985


It is a fact that /r/ and /l/ vary widely when comparing one
language to another.  For example, an /l/ might phonetically
be a fricative in one language, and, as in English, be a glide.
This is not the  case for a sounds like /s/, of which we can
say with confidence that it has certain phonetic properties
(energy concentrated above 4000 Hz) and certain phonological
ones (is syllabic if any fricatives within a langauge are syllabic).
Thus I would be skeptical of any such universal concerning an /r/ or
/l/, simply because the category of manner varies widely.