implosive pronunciation of t

Michael Witzel witzel at FAS.HARVARD.EDU
Thu Jan 24 16:32:58 UTC 2002

Jan is right:

phoneticists have further developed the terminology.

I got/get flak, from the Africanists/Hamito-Semiticists [Afro-Asianists],
if I use 'implosive' which they understand as "ingressive".

However, I simply use the traditional Avestan/South Asian terms. There is
some infighting going on whether Munda (or Khmer for that matter) has
ingressives. I don't think so. They are of the quality of English "yepp"
for "yes", thus plosives without the release (explosion), i.e. non-plosives.



>question whether
>his and Lubotsky's "implosive" pronunciation are
>literally implosive in the sense that "on release of
>the obstruent, there is a tendency for an ingressive
>[rather then egressive, JH] airstream to develop"
>(Peter F. MacNeilage on articulatory phonetics in the
>International Encycl of Linguistics, 1992). From the
>descriptions and context one rather expects simply
>"non-plosive" pronunciation (try to say English "it"
>without following "plosive").
>Jan Houben
Michael Witzel
Department of Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University
2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138, USA

ph. 1- 617-496 2990 (also messages)
home page:

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list