Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA15251 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Tue, 2 Aug 1994 10:49:27 -0400 Message-Id: <199408021449.AA15251@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6912; Tue, 02 Aug 94 10:49:11 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2612; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 10:46:44 -0400 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: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: Chris Handley's message of Tue, 2 Aug 1994 14:23:28 +1200 <199408020207.WAA17489@sirius.ctr.columbia.edu> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Tue Aug 2 10:49:40 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU >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