Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0qVKiZ-000023C; Tue, 2 Aug 94 17:21 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1299; Tue, 02 Aug 94 17:19:58 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1297; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 17:19:57 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6030; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 16:18:59 +0200 Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 10:19:45 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: The Fifty United States, etc. X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: Chris Handley's message of Tue, 2 Aug 1994 14:23:28 +1200 <199408020207.WAA17489@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu> Content-Length: 1056 Lines: 24 >Date: Tue, 2 Aug 1994 14:23:28 +1200 >From: Chris Handley >Thus Mark: >>Whew. I was worried I'd really lost it. But a thought occurred to me: why >>are we transliterating "th" as "t"? Honestly, "f" sounds lots closer to my >>ear. Ask any 3-year-old who's still working on English phonology, and >>you'll hear stuff like "norf" and "souf". Ditto with "v" for the voiced >>th. Has this been considered any? Just a thought. >> >Depends where you come from -- any good Afrikaner will say an 'f' sound >there without even blinking (bear me up Van Dyk), but equally a good German >will use a hard 't' in the same circumstances. Oh, certainly "t" is much more commonly heard as a substitute for "th" among languages that don't have it when quoting languages that do. But is it the right choice? I suppose it's subjective, but in terms of actual closeness of sound "f", as a fricative, sounds way closer to "th" than "t", which can't even last a comparably amount of time. >Chris Handley. ~mark