From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Tue Dec 10 15:56:33 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Dec 2002 23:56:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 193 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 23:56:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 23:56:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net) (212.78.202.112) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 23:56:32 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (host213-121-68-2.surfport24.v21.co.uk [213.121.68.2]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9085B69A; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:56:30 +0100 (MET) To: "Arnt Richard Johansen" , Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 23:56:29 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Tsali: > On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote: > > > Invent Yourself scripsit: > > > > > Indeed. I can go "ihihi" without moving anything at all! For the "i" I > > > voice, and for the "h" I devoice and increase the aspiration > > > > In that case you are doing what I am doing: using [C], IPA c-cedilla, > > as the realization of /h/. Perfectly legitimate thing to do, but > > not the same as IPA [h], which is realized in the back of the throat > > Your /h/ in u'u is probably a lot closer to [h] > > I don't understand why you're saying that the IPA [h] is realized in the > back of the throat. I don't have my _Handbook of the IPA_ at hand, but I > believe that the conventional three-feature description of it is > "voiceless glottal fricative". Note that the glottis is in the larynx, so > this specification does not say anything about how the tongue is > configured. Thus, there should be little or no co-articulatory effects The tongue can be configured in any way, so long as it does not create an aperture narrower than that at the glottis and thereby shift the locus of airstream turbulence from the glottis to the buccal constriction. If that happens the sound is no longer a *glottal* fricative. A good book on this is J. C. Catford _Fundamental problems in phonetics_. He wrote a very good intro textbook from that, whose title I can't remember, but quite possibly the textbook doesn't go into the degree of detail that this discussion is operating with. > When I did one semester of phonetics last year, I learnt an alternative > analysis. I was told that the IPA [h] might be more accurately described > as a vocoid (of unspecified frontness/openness) with voiceless/whispered > phonation. This makes sense, since the airflow above the larynx is > unobstructed, which is the defining criterion of a vocoid.[1] The crucial thing here is the vocoid/contoid boundary. Approximant articulations involve turbulent airflow when voiceless, though on checking Catford I see that a fricative is defined as a constriction that leads to turbulence when there is voicing, so turbulence in itself does not equate to frication, terminologically. I suppose that when one really gets down to it, IPA [h] (and its voiced counterpart) do have to be seen as a generalization over whispered/breathy vocoids. Anyway, I accept the logic of treating a whispered [i] as subsumed by [h], but the difference between it and [C] is far too slight to ever be phonologically contrastive. Anyway, this long excursus into phonetics is all rather a sidetrack. I am confident that, generalizing across individuals, /'/ and /x/ are particularly susceptible to confusion if /'/ is realized as a voiceless dorsal approximant (as I'm sure it must often be). There are various ways of coping with the potential confusion. One might make /x/ extra-scrapey. One might make /'/ lateral or dental. Or, even though the official prescription doesn't license it, one might make /'/ breathy-voiced (or even a voiced dorsal fricative), as Nick reckons people do, and as I do in casual pronunciation. --And.