From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Dec 09 07:04:57 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 9 Dec 2002 15:04:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 53870 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2002 15:04:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2002 15:04:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2002 15:04:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18LPSk-0006oz-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:04:50 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LPSb-0006o5-00; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:04:41 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:04:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.112]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18LPS2-0006hb-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 07:04:06 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-66-8.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.66.8]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F375B5B73A for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 16:03:32 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 15:03:21 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <0H6T00C47XED2L@mxout1.netvision.net.il> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3341 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Robin: > On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:28:07AM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > > de'i li 2002-12-08 ti'u li 00:06:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e > > > > >> Because there is a greater phonic contrast between [T] and [f] or > > >> [s] than between [h] and [x] > > > > > >Furthermore, [ihi] is so difficult to articulate that I think we can > > >safely assume that nobody actually does say [ihi] > > > > I, for one, certainly do say [ihi], and [coho] and everything else > > like that clearly, and it is quite distinct from an [x] > > I'm very curious as to what the heck Rosta is talking about here > > [ihi], assuming I understand the IPA, as *trivial* for me to say, and I > dare say that holds true for the vast majority of north american english > speakers The crux of the debate here is (a) whether if you have the tongue configuration for [i] and switch off voicing you end up with [h] or a weak/open [c,]=[C], and (b) if the latter, then how much opening is required to actually get a [h]. I am of the very possibly incorrect opinion that it is a phonetic fact that devoicing [i] will give you an open [C], not a [h] with [i]-resonance. I further think that the tongue gesture required to turn it into an [h] is unfeasibly large for ordinary speech. The difference between an open [C] and a [h] with i-resonance is a matter of where the turbulence in the airstream occurs. With an open [C] the turbulence occurs at the constriction between tongue and hard palate. With a [h] the turbulence occurs at the glottis. I don't want to cause offense to people by questioning their self-reports, but given what I've said, it seems to me most plausible that people are perceiving an open [C] as a [h], possibly because they correctly perceive that they are not producing a close [C]. I'm not *telling* anybody that they are wrong to believe that they do in fact say [ihi]; it's just that given all the evidence available to me, I can't find their self-reports enough to convince me. > I am so far from having even the slightest problem saying ihi that I'm > wondering if I'm missing something > > My toungue doesn't move position in my mouth *at* *all* to say ihi; > there's merely a slight change in flexure in the middle > > Actually, if someone who understands this discussion wants to call me on > the phone and tell me if I'm doing something drastically wrong, just > mail me privately (I can pay the long distance) >>From your description it sounds to me as if you're producing an open [C] (IPA c-cedilla). I don't begrudge the cost of a phone call (after all, it costs me less to phone California than to phone my nextdoor neighbour), but fricatives work with high-frequencies that get cut off by telephone (as anybody with an S in their name will know from experience), and we are talking some rather subtle distinctions of sound here. Adam: > de'i li 2002-12-08 ti'u li 22:07:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e > >Adam: > >> >> I, for one, certainly do say [ihi], and [coho] and everything else > >> >> like that clearly, and it is quite distinct from an [x] > >> >I can believe very readily the bit about it being distinct from [x], > >> >especially if you do the [x] scrapey. As for the [ihi] that you and > >> >Lojbab report yourselves saying, well -- maybe I can listen when we > >> >meet... It's not that I'm convinced that I'm right and you're wrong, > >> >but [ihi] seems so incredibly difficult to articulate; I say [ic,i], > >> >or else [i i_ i] (where i_ is breathy voiced) > >> > >> If by [c,] you mean a voiceless palatal fricative, then I can see what > >> you mean, as my [h] in [ihi] does approach that, but it is still > >> distinct. All sounds are affected to some extent by sounds in their > >> environment, so the fact that the [h] of [ihi] is slightly different > >> from the [h] of [aha] doesn't mean that it's not an [h]. The [p] of > >> [po] is more rounded than the [p] of [pi], but they're still the same > >> sound by all accounts > > > >IPA [p] covers all degrees of lip-protrusion (endolabiality/exolabiality) > >It's true that in, say, English _head_ and _had_, the [h] has the > >resonance of the following vowels: the frication/turbulence occurs > >at the glottis and the resonating chamber is [E]-shaped or [a]-shaped > >The snag is that when the resonating chamber has the configuration > >for a close vowel, I think the locus of frication/turbulence is > >likely to become buccal, so that for /hi/ instead of [hi] we are > >likelier to get [c,i] (and for /ihi/ even likelier to get [ic,i]) > >In other words, to actually get [ihi] it is not enough to simply > >switch off voicing; one must also increase the buccal aperture to > >a degree sufficient to make the aperture at the glottis the narrowest > >in the vowel tract. Clearly it is rather onerous for an averagely > >lazy speaker to do all this extra opening and closing of the buccal > >aperture, especially in ordinary rapid speech > > The shape of the resonating cavity is affected by the vowels > surrounding the sound, and certainly the tongue is much closer when > pronouncing the [h] of [ihi] than when pronouncing the [h] of [aha], > but there is not nearly enough friction for it to truly become a > palatal fricative. This is similar, IMO, to what happens with ".ii". I > pronounce it [ji], though the j gets close enough to the alveolar > region that sometimes a bit of friction can be heard, certainly more so > that when I pronounce [ja], but it is still nowhere near [Zi] For aerodynamic reasons that I cannot remember without returning to books I don't have to hand, voiced fricatives require a greater degree of constriction. Approximants turn into weak fricatives when devoiced. > >> [h], and sometimes r) > >> However, [ihi] can still occur in foreign words, like [nihilizm] (and I > >> assume that [ihi] must have occured in the word 'nihil' in Latin, > >> otherwise the Romans wouldn't have written it like that), > > > >Surely you would not, on reflection, insist that because the Romans > >wrote /ihi/ as they must have pronounced it [ihi]? > > They must have pronounced it close enough to [ihi] to have written it > like that. If they pronounced it [iCi] I would think that it would > be at least as likely that they would have written it "isi" as > "ihi" !!! Obviously they wrote it because phonologically it was /ihi/ and not /isi/ or anything else. Why would they probably have pronounced /ihi/ as [iCi]? Because it's much easier and hence more natural. When hearing [iCi] how would they know they were hearing /ihi/ and not /isi/? Well, they'd be able to discriminate between [isi] and [iCi] and know from the realization rules that the one is a realization of /isi/ and the other a realization of /ihi/. All this is totally normal and unremarkable. English speakers, for instance, have no difficulty hearing [Cit] as _heat_ rather than _seat_ or _sheet_, and [Cu] as _hue_ rather than _sue_ or _shoe_. --And.