From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Nov 20 11:54:10 1995
Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id LAA25262 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 11:54:07 -0500
Message-Id: <199511201654.LAA25262@locke.ccil.org>
Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 911295F9 ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:45:43 -0400
Date:         Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:30:34 -0800
Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Jim Carter <jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Goran on phonology
To:         lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu
In-Reply-To:  Your message of "Sun, 19 Nov 95 09:01:38 +0700." 
              <9511190805.AA00203@julia.math.ucla.edu>
Status: OR

> ... I believed that English aspirates a voiceless plosive if
> and only if it is the first consonant in the word and is followed by a
> vowel. I don't know whether it also happens to the voiced plosives, I
> think not. So if I am right, it doesn't have any distinctive function, and
> replaces its unaspirated pair only in one special case:
>
> kill [k'ill] vs. gill [gill],

Now with an example I understand this thread, and why it was formerly
incomprehensible: in my accent (USA kind of standard I think) one doesn't
aspirate [kill] except in football war-cries that are being exaggerated
for effect.  And as in the other examples given, one also doesn't normally
aspirate the other plosives (voiced or voiceless) except for artistic
effect or for faking "foreign" accents.

                -- jimc