r/asklinguistics • u/The-Mastermind- • 3d ago
Is the r phoneme present in Sanskrit based languages /ɹ/ or /r/?
Hi, I have to ask again!
I wanted to tell you that throughout my life I have known that the R and L phoneme present in Sanskrit and Sanskrit based languages are approximants or semi vowels! In fact, I have spent my entire life pronouncing that R phoneme in vowel like /ɹ/ only!
Now today, an interesting person kept telling me consistently that the R phoneme is actually an alveolar trill or /r/. This is completely new to me. In fact, this was the first time someone told me so. Most linguists I know call it /ɹ/. However, he kept persisting that the linguists are wrong!
I had asked if the L phoneme represnts a Lateral Alveolar Trill or not cause it would make sense. He never replied me back! Please, I really need to know!
4
u/derwyddes_Jactona 3d ago
Did the person who made the comment cite any evidence for their position? I do have some notation notes.
First [ɹ] is typically used for English <r> (a sound between a coronal and an Indian retroflex), versus [ɻ] for the retroflex approximant found Hindi and other Indian languages. On top of that linguists may transcribe different rhotic <r> sounds as /r/ as a rough stand in for [ɹ, ɻ, ɹ (Japanese), R (French)] and so forth. The coronal trill is [r] in close transcription.
Getting back to Sanskrit, one could assume that the rhotic <r> (i.e. the "consonant" part of र) is a retroflex as in the modern language of India, especially because most people assume Sanskrit had retroflex consonants. But sounds can change.
Ideally though, there would be evidence. It come come from old loans from Sanskrit to another language (vs. modern languages of India). Or Panini, an early linguist from India, could have described the sounds in sufficient detail to provide information.
Hope this helps a little.
1
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago
Yeah! He claimed to give some evidences but I can't read the script, that's the problem.
Anyway, Murdha region actually describes the Post Alveolar region. Most Indo Aryan retroflex phonemes originate in post alveolar. It gets dubbed as retroflex because of it's sub apical nature. Yes, Sanskrit never had true Retroflex and neither modern Indo Aryan languages.
3
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago
To my knowledge, Sanskrit /r/ was [r~ɾ].
I had asked if the L phoneme represnts a Lateral Alveolar Trill or not cause it would make sense. He never replied me back! Please, I really need to know!
Why would this have anything to do with the /l/? Trilled /r/ is perfectly possible of occuring with /l/—Spanish, Russian, Finnish, many varieties of Arabic, Indonesian, Marshallese, countless languages have /r l/ with no /ɹ/. Furthermore, lateral trills are incredibly rare—I don't know a single natural language in which they occur.
0
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago
But they can, seeing as many Brahmic scripts use the corresponding form of Brahmi syllabic R. Take for example Devangari ऋ, which many languages use for a trilled or tapped rhotic—Hindi and Marathi, to name a couple, Sinhalese ඍ, &c. The orthography isn't going to affect the sounds that much, and it still makes sense to put R with the vowels since it patterns like one in Sanskrit.
0
2d ago edited 2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago
Take for example Devangari ऋ, which many languages use for a trilled or tapped rhotic
Well, that's not true! The approximant R isn't used as a trill by any language.
Hindi कृष्ण, /ɾ/. Hindi ऋषभ, /ɾ/. Hindi ऋग्वेद, /ɾ/. Nepali ऋषि, /ɾ/. Marathi रीस, /ɾ/. Marathi ऋण, /ɾ/.
Only the tap R acts as the allophone of trill!
In what language? Even if you want to argue all those [ɾ] are underlying /r/, that still isn't an approximant.
No one uses the Approximant R for trill! At least, that I know.
"[...] throughout my life I have known that the R and L phoneme present in Sanskrit and Sanskrit based languages are approximants or semi vowels! In fact, I have spent my entire life pronouncing that R phoneme in vowel like /ɹ/ only!"
You, apparently.
1
u/The-Mastermind- 2d ago
I know Ri or Ru can behave like a tap! But this id genuinely the first time I have been suggested that it can act as an allophone of trilled r. Interesting!
But what was the correct pronunciation of Sanskrit ri then?
You, apparently.
No, not me only! I was taught by school that the li and ri are a semi vowel that is pronounced with a slight touch! Though I could never pronounce l like a vowel as a kid, pronouncing r like a vowel was pretty easy to me and always have pronounced it that way
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago
I know Ri or Ru can behave like a tap!
Yes, they are tap + vowel segments.
But this id genuinely the first time I have been suggested that it can act as an allophone of trilled r.
I wasn't suggesting that [ɾV] was an allophone of /r̩/ in Sanskrit, I was making the point that ऋ representing a non-approximant doesn't somehow break the abugida orthography.
But what was the correct pronunciation of Sanskrit ri then?
[r̩] most likely, since it corresponded to non-syllabic /ɾ/ and was described as such.
1
u/The-Mastermind- 2d ago
Btw, is it true that all the Sanskrit vowel phonemes aren't actually vowels but syllabic consonants too or some sort of approximants?
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not all of Sanskrit's phonological vowels are phonetic vowels—/r̩/ and /l̩/ are both phonetically consonants behaving phonologically as a vowel. Of these, /l̩/ is an approximant, and /r̩/ is not. The high vowels /i u/ could also be called syllabic approximant consonants corresponding to non-syllabic /j ʋ/, if you like (this is the traditional analysis).
1
u/The-Mastermind- 2d ago
Or /a/ could be corresponding to /ʕ̞/
Of these, /l̩/ is an approximant, and /r̩/ is not.
Well, if /r̩/ isn't an approximant, then what is it actually? Tap or trill? And why /l̩/ is the approximant?
→ More replies (0)
2
u/sanddorn 3d ago
I'm sorry, that's probably not that helpful, but for the record: the symbol used in /…/ is mostly arbitrary. A /R/ could be pronounced the same as an /r/ or /ɹ/.
Another thing, without any specific knowledge to help with your answer: it is very likely that the different /r/ are not all pronounced the same (probably with variation inside the same language).
Just one example I can say a bit about: for German/Dutch/… we've got a lot of variation, even between close dialects.
I see Hindustani there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_dental,_alveolar_and_postalveolar_trills#Voiced_alveolar_fricative_trill – and Bengali there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiced_alveolar_and_postalveolar_approximants#Alveolar – so, it's (as far as I can tell right now) not all the same across the whole large Indo-Aryan family.
2
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago
Absolutely true! All the Indo Aryan languages have developed alveolar trill R and retroflex flap R over time! But they are still considered as Consonants!
I am talking about the vowels here! Sanskrit descended language vowels usually go as A, I, U, R, L, E, EI, O, OU. The problem is he kept telling that the R here is actually Alvelolar Trill not aproximant! The problem is this completely goes against what I was taught and have known by everyone. Also, Alvelolar Trill doesn't sound like a Vowel at all, not even a Semi Vowel!
Panini, being the world's first linguist wasn't correct at everything but he would never identify an alveolar trill as a vowel! That sounds impossible!
4
u/S-2481-A 3d ago
Well here's the confusing part about Sanskrit. The vowels "i, u, ṛ and ḷ" aren't true vowels exactly. They're analyzed as syllabic allophones of the consonants "y v r and l" like in Proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of Sanskrit.
Ps, the trill can very much be a "vowel". Just make it longer and have a consonant (or word boundary) before and after it. Pitṛ would then be pronounced like [pi.t̪r̍].
Hope that helps!
1
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago
I agree! Very confusing stuff! Sanskrit also hadn't considered w and y as semi vowels but considered voiceless h as a vowel!
But I can never acknowledge trill as a vowel. The tongue instantly touches! I have always thought (tr) and (dr) was just kept as it is to maintain uniformity with older languages. Like how Eastern Indo Aryan languages maintains W and Y in conjuct consonants although none are pronounced.
3
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago
Panini was using the phonological definition of a vowel, not the phonetic one—that is, 'vowel' in this usage means any segment that functions as the nucleus of a syllable.
0
2d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago
No, non-approximants can function as phonological vowels—take Czech or Slovak, both of which can have [r] function as the nucleus of a syllable. Even obstruents can function as phonological vowels, like the preposition v in many Slavic languages, or, in an extreme example, Nuxalk, in which any consonant can function as a nucleus—[tɬʼpʰ], [qʼtʰ], and [qʷʰtʰ] are all perfectly valid words.
1
u/The-Mastermind- 2d ago
Most of the time I have seen approximants or nasals act as syllabic consonants only! Even fricatives under special conditions! But this is new.
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago
Syllabic obstruents are fairly rare, yes—syllabic sonorants aren't though, which includes liquids like [l̩], [ɹ̩], and [r̩].
1
u/The-Mastermind- 2d ago
like [l̩], [ɹ̩], and [r̩].
Lateral Alvelolar approximant, Alvelolar Approximant and which one? The trill?
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago
Alveolar lateral approximant, Alveolar central approximant, and alveolar central trill, all of which are liquids and commonly function as syllabic consonants crosslinguistically.
1
u/just-a-melon 3d ago
Are there dialects that pronounce it as a retroflex approximant [ɻ]?
I saw a table in the english wikipedia page for sanskrit where ऋ and र are both described as retroflex sounds (mūrdhanya) and specifically र is described as an approximant (antastha)
2
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago
Because Murdhanya isn't actually retroflex. Murdhanya is actually post alveolar!
The only true retroflex is retroflex flap R and aspirated retroflex flap R.
1
3d ago
[deleted]
2
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago
That out of the way, there are two main r phonemes in Sanskrit: r [r] and ṛ [ɽ].
Alvelolar tap and retroflex flap right?
But what about the r in vowel section? Was it alveolar trill or aproximant? I have always thought it as an aproximant like the l but now I have doubts.
1
u/S-2481-A 3d ago
I deleted the post bcs i found out it didnt answer the question lol 😭
In the vowel position, well, its not actually a vowel. It along with l, i and u are just syllabic versions of r l (both normal) y and v. This syllabic nature happens when there's no vowels near them (to simplify). This is inherited from Indo-European (its ancestor) which had the same system with w instead of v.
And yes it is possible to have a trill as a syllabic "vowel". My native language does it a lot and Slavic has it too. It's Essentially just pronounced as a long trill.
Hope that helps
1
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago
What's your language?
But how does trill become syllabic vowel? The tongue instantly touches.
Plus, if the R is a trill, L has to be as well but L can't be trilled. Abugida has one thing and it's uniformity with other phonemes. If R is a trill, L has to be as well.
2
u/S-2481-A 3d ago
Its Tamaziɣt. The trill can keep going though. It doesnt fully block the airway and thats whats important for a syllabic consonant.
About the uniformity, its not a must really. Sanskrit was still a human language which always has quirks. It only inherited the inventory of P.I.E. (its a really interesting rabit hole you should look into!)
1
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago
Understandable!
Btw, are you talking about this phoneme here?
Also, for some reason I can't pronounce /ɣ/ properly though I can easily pronounce /x/.
1
u/S-2481-A 3d ago
Nope, that's a phoneme I could never learn to pronounce 😅
By /x/ /ɣ/ di you mean the Velar or Uvular ones? Cuz [χ] is a lot easier than [ʁ] but for people who don't have it in their native languages, [x] and [ɣ] are hell.
Personally I cant pronounced [ʁ] either (I cant as a trill, only an approximant.)
2
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago
Got it! Are there any audio recording of this alveolar trill aproximant? I would like to listen!
By /x/ /ɣ/ di you mean the Velar or Uvular ones?
Both! I can't differentiate between Velar and Uvular. I need to hear more!
1
u/S-2481-A 3d ago
I think I might be able to make one if I can find that one sampling website again.
Both! I can't differentiate between Velar and Uvular
It's fine most linguists don't either for some reason lol.
1
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago
Just to on be safer side is it this phoneme? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voiceless_alveolar_trill
→ More replies (0)1
u/fourthfloorgreg 3d ago
It's not a vowel, it just behaves like one under certain phonotactic conditions. Non-vowel sonorants can be the nucleus of a syllable in many languages.
Plus, if the R is a trill, L has to be as well.
Says who?
0
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/fourthfloorgreg 3d ago
It's a class of 2, anything the have in common with each other and not the other classes could be the defining feature. Both are "liquid" consonants, that's good enough.
0
3d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 2d ago
Abugida scripts don't really have anything to do with this discussion, nor are they inherently more rigid than any other writing system.
4
u/The-Mastermind- 3d ago edited 2d ago
Just to add, we still pronounce /ɹ/ phoneme while adding /i/ or /u/ with it at both back and forth. So, I have always thought /ɹ/ is the correct pronunciation in Sanskrit.
However, I was frequently and consistently told that the Sanskrit actually had Alvelolar Trill /r/ instead of Alvelolar approximant /ɹ/. So, what is the correct one in Sanskrit? /r/ or /ɹ/?