Zompist Bboard Again

In languages with a single articulation for non-syllabic rhotics, what are the likely possibilities for a syllabic rhotic with a length contrast? I've hit the question in respect of Sanskrit, for which the options I find most attractive are [ɹ̩] (alveolar approximant) and [ɻ̩] (retroflex approximant). It seems that manner can vary with length; Slovak reportedly has short vowel [ɾ̩] (tapǃ) but lonɡ vowel [r̟ː] (trill).

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 5:43 pm In languages with a single articulation for non-syllabic rhotics, what are the likely possibilities for a syllabic rhotic with a length contrast? I've hit the question in respect of Sanskrit, for which the options I find most attractive are [ɹ̩] (alveolar approximant) and [ɻ̩] (retroflex approximant). It seems that manner can vary with length; Slovak reportedly has short vowel [ɾ̩] (tapǃ) but lonɡ vowel [r̟ː] (trill).

This is English, but my /ɜr/~/ər/ can be both [ʁ̩ˤ] and [ʁ̩ˤː] depending on whether it is followed by a fortis obstruent or not.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 8:01 pm This is English, but my /ɜr/~/ər/ can be both [ʁ̩ˤ] and [ʁ̩ˤː] depending on whether it is followed by a fortis obstruent or not.

are you asking us to believe that your realization of what is almost universally either a vowel or a V+C sequence is in fact a syllabic uvular consonant

Emily wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:57 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 8:01 pm This is English, but my /ɜr/~/ər/ can be both [ʁ̩ˤ] and [ʁ̩ˤː] depending on whether it is followed by a fortis obstruent or not.

are you asking us to believe that your realization of what is almost universally either a vowel or a V+C sequence is in fact a syllabic uvular consonant

Yes. Note that in NAE /ɜr/~/ər/ is normally considered a "rhotic vowel", and what really is that but a syllabic rhotic consonant (which may or may not be "bunched", and what is a "bunched" rhotic but a palatal or dorsal rhotic?) (Do not confuse this with "rhotic vowels" such as the [ɛ] in merry or the [ɔ] in north, which are probably better described as rhotic-colored.)

the difference between a vowel and a syllabic approximant is blurry, and while i don't agree with the assessment of NAE "er" as a true syllabic consonant rather than a vowel, i won't dispute it. but i find it very difficult to believe that a (presumably) native speaker of any variety of english, but especially north american, would pronounce it as a full-on uvular fricative

Emily wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 4:10 pm the difference between a vowel and a syllabic approximant is blurry, and while i don't agree with the assessment of NAE "er" as a true syllabic consonant rather than a vowel, i won't dispute it. but i find it very difficult to believe that a (presumably) native speaker of any variety of english, but especially north american, would pronounce it as a full-on uvular fricative

Um that's just because this is a point where IPA is ambiguous - I do not have a uvular fricative at all (that would remind me of French) but rather a pharyngealized (when not following a coronal) uvular approximant.

Richard W wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 5:43 pm In languages with a single articulation for non-syllabic rhotics, what are the likely possibilities for a syllabic rhotic with a length contrast? I've hit the question in respect of Sanskrit, for which the options I find most attractive are [ɹ̩] (alveolar approximant) and [ɻ̩] (retroflex approximant). It seems that manner can vary with length; Slovak reportedly has short vowel [ɾ̩] (tapǃ) but lonɡ vowel [r̟ː] (trill).

If I’ve understood you correctly, Yurok (a language of NW California distantly related to Algonquian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurok_language) shows this. There’s a single articulation for a non-syllabic rhotic (that can be glottalized /ˀɻ/), and a syllabic rhotic with a length contrast /ɚ ɚː/. You could instead analyze it as a rhotacized central vowel, but honestly, not all phonological or phonetic models would distinguish a syllabic rhotic from a rhotacized schwa.