Talk:L-vocalization

message: seemed important to me to mention the role of l-vocalizations in old french. it helps a lot to understand the relations between french and latin. excuse my bad english and me for not been logged in, but i hope it's usable. --79.194.233.105 20:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: french example

message: What is the opposite, where /l/ is inserted after certain back vowels? E.g. Americans who pronounce saw [sɑl]. kwami (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't encountered that one. A more famous example is Bristol, formerly Bridstow. —Tamfang (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suspect both are instances of hypercorrection. +Angr 08:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My sister used to say "sawl", and I've even heard it from commentators on the news, but I doubt it was hypercorrection, as I can't think of anything she would've been compensating for. More like people who pronounce the gees in singing ("sing-ging-g"). kwami (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The Bristolian accent has had reverse-L-vocalization for hundreds of years, using the name of the city itself as an indicator.   I don't believe that it is the result of hyper-correction. As an accent of the British Isles, it's very local to Bristol; in Bath and Clevedon it's non-existent.     I recall a conversation with a native Bristolian some years ago who had been to Canadal and was going to visit Americal. But somebody who lived in the city since the age of 20 or so still thought it strange to hear.  Twistlethrop (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the opposite 

message: # Is there any particular reason other than an European bias to have an article on L-vocalization but not on R-vocalization, Ɣ-vocalization, B-vocalization, etc.?
# The beginning of the English section treats what is simply difthongization before /l/ (and thus overlaps with vowel breaking) (also, it seems, without any references for this being known as "L-vocalization") — should other similar cases be included, and by implication, also similar changes caused by other consonants?
# Vocalization in the coda seems to be the 'preferred' type here. I've included a few Uralic examples that apply in the onset position too. Any opposition?
--Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. The main reason is that no one has written R-vocalization, Ɣ-vocalization, B-vocalization, etc. —Tamfang (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

text: 2. I say why not treat other changes similar to L-vocalization in this article, in order to say that yes, these are similar to L-vocalization in certain ways (which we can explain), but, in certain ways (which we can also explain), do not fulfill the definition of L-vocalization. Treatment of similar concepts would disambiguate: what does L-vocalization mean and what does it not mean? It would make the article more interesting to those who have some interest in phonology by showing the relationships between concepts in phonology, and make it clearer by clearly defining what the article's topic actually is. That is, if our writing is good. — Eru·tuon 17:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope issues 

message: The Dutch section mentions /al/, /ol/, and /ul/ changing to ou, but doesn't mention an example of /ul/. Anyone have an example so we can be nice and systematic? I assume since /u/ is spelled oe in Dutch, the example would be an earlier-than-Modern Dutch word with oel in it. — Eru·tuon 16:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually refers to Old Dutch /ul/. In the transition to Middle Dutch, all instances of /u/ and /o/ merged into short /o/. That is why many Germanic cognates with u in them have o in Dutch. The modern Dutch sound /u/ has another source; it developed from the Proto-Germanic long /ɔː/ through the Old Dutch diphthong /uo/, which developed into centralising /uə/ in Middle Dutch, before developing into a simple /u/ later on towards the end of the middle ages. CodeCat (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch 

message: Is it true that l was vocalized in French at the end of a word? I think it's only before a consonant. The example beau, where there's no consonant after the vocalized l, can be explained by the fact that the nominative form is beaus, with a consonant. Other examples where the l is truly word-final, like miel, where in Latin there was no nominative -s and I assume there was none in Old French either, have no vocalization. Does anyone know about this? I suppose I can try to look it up. — Eru·tuon 17:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  French 

message: Croatian didn't lose all of final l, even duo in standard is bio, kupio, čekao, čuo..., there is still a very large portion of population (some 40%) pronouncing final l bil, kupil, čekal, čul.... Thus even in standard there are words proscribed as doublets, some of this words are cijel - cio, dijel - dio, udjel - udio, čil - čio, mil - mio, debeo - debel, kiseo - kisel, veseo - vesel..., whilst standard proscribes no vocalization when l comes after o, thus only stol, vol, sokol, sol, ohol, gol... 5.43.191.151 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatian 

message: A vocalization to i, as in viel>vui, only occurs in the western varieties of central Austro-Bavarian (Munich), while in the eastern varieties (Vienna), it causes lip rounding, not a diphthong: viel>vüü. This functions as an isogloss between east and west and in general, between Bavaria and Austria. See chart under "Mittelbairisch" at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bairische_Dialekte. --Janko (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocalization to i or j in Austro-Bavarian 

message: There is a similar alternation in Hungarian like standard bolt ~ dialectal bót. We have also at least one example of historical hipercorrection: historical hód » modern hold Torzsmokus (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian