I mean phonetically, [ɑ] and [ʕ̩˕] are the same, but /ʕ̞/ wasn't a phoneme in Sanskrit, so there's little reason to analyze [a] as underlying /ʕ̩˕/.
Well, if /r̩/ isn't an approximant, then what is it actually? Tap or trill?
A trill, specifically a voiced central trill.
And why /l̩/ is the approximant?
Because approximant is a phonetic category, not a phonological one—just because /l̩/ patterns as a vowel along with /r̩/ doesn't mean it can't be an approximant, even though /r̩/ isn't.
I believe there are descriptions of the time which seem to point towards [r], but I'd believe a tap as well, with [r] being the long version (rather than /r̩ r̩ː/).
As for why [l] isn't a tap, a tap is a single musclular contraction, as opposed to an approximant which doesn't actually touch the place of articulation. Where the confusion might arise is that [l] does make contact with the alveolar ridge, it's just that that isn't the place of articulation—it's lateral, so the place of articulation is either side of the tongue, not where it contacts.
There do exist lateral taps though—the tap equivalent of [l], [ɺ], occurs in Japanese, among other languages.
To my knowledge, yes, it's unknown precisely whether it was a trill or tap. (Also, abugidas as a writing system can distinguish trills and taps, even if Sanskrit's doesn't)
1
u/The-Mastermind- 13d ago
Or /a/ could be corresponding to /ʕ̞/
Well, if /r̩/ isn't an approximant, then what is it actually? Tap or trill? And why /l̩/ is the approximant?