Message-Id: <m0tH4kl-0000ZUC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sun, 19 Nov 1995 09:01:38 MET
Reply-To:     Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>
Subject:      Re: Goran on phonology
To:         Lojban Listserv <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
Content-Length: 1556
Lines: 35

> > > There is nothing in lojban phonology that would imply that aspiration
> > > has distinctive function.
> > True, but I'm not sure that that's what was originally intended. I suspect
> > James Brown, or whoever it was, believed that English p/t/k b/d/g differ
> > in voicing. Was this design feature really introduced in the knowledge
> > that it is foreign and very difficult to english ears? I doubt it.
>
> Spanish distinguishes them by fricating (or whatever) b/d/g rather than by
> aspirating p/t/k. If voicedness is not enough I don't see why the English
> method should be the preferred one. :)

I don't understand you, people... It seems that my ideas on English are
a bit skewed... 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],

but:

leak [li:k] vs. league [li:g],
plot [plot] vs. blot [blot],
staple [steipl] vs. stable [steibl]

(apostrophe here signifying aspiration). paupei?

co'o mi'e. goran. noi se cfipu tu'a la gliban. .e loi selbau be ri

--
GAT/CS/O d?@ H s:-@ !g p1(2)@ !au(0?) a- w+(+++) (!)v-@(+) C++(++++)
UU/H(+) P++>++++ L(>+) !3 E>++ N+ K(+) W--(---) M-- !V(--) -po+ Y(+)
t+@(+++) !5 !j R+@ G-@(J++) tv+(++) b++@ D++ B? e+* u@ h!$ f?(+) r--
!n(+@) y+. GeekCode v2.1, modifications left to reader to puzzle out