Received: from mail-pa0-f59.google.com ([209.85.220.59]:56915) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YCxg9-0004SA-GW; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:46:42 -0800 Received: by mail-pa0-f59.google.com with SMTP id kx10sf676838pab.4; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:46:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=jZ3ynsf74+3Tgmo04KnxRaN+p0tvWIZ4BRtImmM0UUo=; b=KbGjyx3V6GGSbDWKSgBZ1vtEm2QjbUYtVzkcJbQkY/ejs0l/BrRV+O6NELUA2hvPEO Q2lKVhL9O6403kuwqf5AsRZrqUglnav6MEFascGgS3UztNRZ/oddKV/sY0aIT60K1Zpk dWVkwoGTGsvfvfC8vzoF6xpOlo/2Hhe0cRxsk0p0InpxuzdP/mBzmxq3mNagrLrZuPvJ kL1mbeQNB4G0yniVsEDAC+O/DAZggseTaJcnVHla0z9okSVQbyLNO48x+HPGNWxjK0Cg OG/oGKscbi0E1O1BTvXhQAAoX+EU9Y9NoJzp8bUNJhiBDqE1NKDbznHuMUJ/KuY5K/lv 3Bgw== X-Received: by 10.51.16.165 with SMTP id fx5mr193203igd.16.1421617594914; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:46:34 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.35.193 with SMTP id j184ls1620270ioj.26.gmail; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:46:34 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.251.35 with SMTP id zh3mr21315431pac.32.1421617594708; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:46:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com. [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n1si727220igp.0.2015.01.18.13.46.34 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:46:34 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236; Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id x19so28083990ier.13 for ; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:46:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.79.129 with SMTP id zq1mr17992351icb.28.1421617594505; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:46:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.36.115.137 with HTTP; Sun, 18 Jan 2015 13:46:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:46:34 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] Question on {z} vs. {dz} and {ts} From: "Mike S." To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11332018ba1ef2050cf42326 X-Original-Sender: maikxlx@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=maikxlx@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.8 X-Spam_score_int: 8 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > >> I am curious, do you know how well Mandarin speakers manage with >> Lojban's voiced plosives /b d g/? Are [b d g] allophones of Mandarin /p t >> k/? >> > > IMO, most of them can be rather semi-voiced than fully voiced except [g] > probably. But how would they otherwise perceive [b] if not as [p]? > > As for when we do need to express [p] we would probably have to always > aspirate it to make Chinese Lojbanists understand more easily what we are > saying. > > And this is how I mapped the phonologies of the two languages. The result > is that only [v] and [z] can pose problems. > [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: googlegroups.com] 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.220.59 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (maikxlx[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different --001a11332018ba1ef2050cf42326 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > >> I am curious, do you know how well Mandarin speakers manage with >> Lojban's voiced plosives /b d g/? Are [b d g] allophones of Mandarin /p= t >> k/? >> > > IMO, most of them can be rather semi-voiced than fully voiced except [g] > probably. But how would they otherwise perceive [b] if not as [p]? > > As for when we do need to express [p] we would probably have to always > aspirate it to make Chinese Lojbanists understand more easily what we are > saying. > > And this is how I mapped the phonologies of the two languages. The result > is that only [v] and [z] can pose problems. > Unfortunately I am afraid that it's a bit impractical to ask non-Mandarin speakers to aspirate their Lojban /p/s, and I don't think your one-to-one mappings of plosives (if I am reading them correctly) work as a good Lojban pronunciation guide for Mandarin speakers. The mappings are appropriate for consistent transliterations of course, but in speech with people of different language backgrounds, the Mandarin /p/ - /p=CA=B0/ contrast is effectively eliminated in Lojban. Mandarin speakers will simply have to learn how to produce and hear voiced plosives. If it's any consolation, Mandarin speakers are not alone. Here is how some major languages treat distinctions in their plosives (as best I can tell), starting with the difficult cases: - Two-way aspirated/plain distinction (no voice distinction): Mandarin, Cantonese - Two-way partially-aspirated/partially-voiced distinction: English, Japanese*, German - Two-way stiff-voiced/slack-voiced distinction: Javanese - Three-way aspirated/plain/tense distinction (no voice distinction): Korea= n - One series of plosives: Tamil Here are the phonologies most compatible with Lojban plosives: - Four-way aspirated/unaspirated + voiceless/voiced distinction: Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Telugu, Marathi, Urdu - Two-way voiceless/voiced distinction, no aspiration distinction: Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese*, Indonesian, French, Turkish, Italian, Persian - Three-way aspirated/plain/voiced distinction: Wu, Vietnamese, Thai * primarily a voice distinction, with light aspiration in the voiceless --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --001a11332018ba1ef2050cf42326 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 a= t 11:12 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 I am c= urious, do you know how well Mandarin speakers manage with Lojban's voi= ced plosives /b d g/?=C2=A0 Are [b d g] allophones of Mandarin /p t k/?
=

IMO, most o= f them can be rather semi-voiced than fully voiced except [g] probably. But= how would they otherwise perceive [b] if not as [p]?

<= div>As for when we do need to express [p] we would probably have to always = aspirate it to make Chinese Lojbanists understand more easily what we are s= aying.

And this is how I mapped the phonologies of= the two languages. The result is that only [v] and [z] can pose problems.<= /div>

Unfortunately I am afraid that it's a bit impractical to ask non-Ma= ndarin speakers to aspirate their Lojban /p/s, and I don't think your o= ne-to-one mappings of plosives (if I am reading them correctly) work as a g= ood Lojban pronunciation guide for Mandarin speakers.=C2=A0 The mappings ar= e appropriate for consistent transliterations of course, but in speech with= people of different language backgrounds, the Mandarin /p/ - /p=CA=B0/ con= trast is effectively eliminated in Lojban.=C2=A0 Mandarin speakers will sim= ply have to learn how to produce and hear voiced plosives.

If it's any consolation, Mandarin speakers are = not alone.=C2=A0 Here is how some major languages treat distinctions in the= ir plosives (as best I can tell), starting with the difficult cases:
- Two-way aspirated/plain distinction (no= voice distinction): Mandarin, Cantonese

- Two-way partially-aspirated/partially-voiced distinction: English, = Japanese*, German

- Two-way s= tiff-voiced/slack-voiced distinction: Javanese

- Three-way aspirated= /plain/tense distinction (no voice distinction): Korean

- One = series of plosives: Tamil


Here a= re the phonologies most compatible with Lojban plosives:

- Four-way aspirated/unasp= irated + voiceless/voiced distinction: Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Telugu, Mar= athi, Urdu

- Two-way voiceless/voiced distinction, no aspiration distinction= : Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese*, Indonesian, French, Turk= ish, Italian, Persian

- Three= -way aspirated/plain/voiced distinction: Wu, Vietnamese, Thai


* primarily= a voice distinction, with light aspiration in the voiceless












--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--001a11332018ba1ef2050cf42326--