Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tHIWj-0000ZUC; Mon, 20 Nov 95 00:47 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id EA6AD5E6 ; Sun, 19 Nov 1995 23:47:57 +0100 Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 15:44:37 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: Goran on phonology X-To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 875 Lines: 16 Goran: >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: If you say "kill" with unaspirated k, an Anglophone will tend to hear it as "gill". But the final t in "rot" you can aspirate or not as you please and it doesn't sound like "rod" unless you voice it. It would appear that the two sounds have different distinctive features depending on their context. Can that be right? ____ Chris Bogart \ / http://www.quetzal.com Boulder, CO \/ cbogart@quetzal.com