From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sun Nov 19 09:50:32 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:50:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Glqo1-0007do-2v for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:50:13 -0800 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Glqnv-0007df-F9 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:50:12 -0800 Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c31so3581540nfb for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:50:06 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=PZfSw19T7KTLkFJS0pbgdR71hlKDajIDyfuqqX4K6xoBXsC1PEDLrlfBpuQk+IRzF3v3RQQ+O5UoZSQI+I8T9hWLmkWXuRdcs8lIK/QGHn+sf8M4nbQtP7JCGsZhrFPJvEZgB2usktQN5Xju7OuyuJgjuVHgzZC2lMRwiy7Bt+g= Received: by 10.49.29.2 with SMTP id g2mr5460765nfj.1163958605290; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:50:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?62.41.132.151? ( [62.41.132.151]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id p20sm19072666nfc.2006.11.19.09.50.01; Sun, 19 Nov 2006 09:50:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <455F9ADE.4020409@v21.me.uk> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:44:30 +0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: "la" rule References: <20061114173413.83990.qmail@web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <455A35B4.5020804@lojban.org> <455A4F10.2080600@gmail.com> <737b61f30611141955l74a5edc2h3121344c355f3d06@mail.gmail.com> <455AFCD0.8080402@gmail.com> <737b61f30611160525i24a19ao873918345aed7212@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <737b61f30611160525i24a19ao873918345aed7212@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: And Rosta X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-archive-position: 13210 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: and.rosta@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Chris Capel, On 16/11/2006 13:25: > On 11/15/06, And Rosta wrote: >> Chris Capel, On 15/11/2006 03:55: >> > la.clsn >> > laclsn >> > >> > sound pretty much the same the way I say them. >> >> In my English English accent, _lash_ is [laS] and _latch_ is [la?S], >> so one can at least say that the contrast is not exotic. In Lojban, >> where /./ appears in difficult clusters you could insert the buffer >> vowel (I use [Y]), so e.g. /la.clsn/ could be [la?YSlsn]. That's what >> I tend to do with the /./ at the end of cmevla, e.g. {la .alis. cu} >> [la?alis?YSu]. > > I wonder whether your pronunciation is very different from mine. The > way I say "latch", I would fear using it as a pronunciation method in > Lojban because of the possible confusion with the "tc" cluster, and > ending up with something sound like "la tclsn" instead of "la .clsn". > The difference between a glottal stop and a consonant that contains a > complete airway restriction isn't apparent to me. For instance, > besides the final "n", what would the difference be between "la tcidu" > and "la .cidun"? Maybe a recording would make the difference plain > enough, though. Acoustically, the contrast between Lojban /a.ci/, /atci/, /akci/ and /apci/ is manifest in the different ways the /., t, c, p/ warp the formants of the preceding /a/. But for the likes of you and me, the acoustic contrast would be hard to perceive (when not consciously listening out for it) because in English [?] and [t] are both allophones of /t/ and are sometimes in free variation. But it's inevitable that this sort of thing happens when one uses a foreign language. --And. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.