Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tHFaJ-0000ZUC; Sun, 19 Nov 95 21:39 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 95524A4A ; Sun, 19 Nov 1995 20:39:27 +0100 Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 16:00:00 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Goran on phonology X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1130 Lines: 22 Jorge > Goran & And: > > > 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'm not proposing it be made easier for anglophones. I just raised this as an unforeseen difficulty and one that remains relatively unnoticed due in part to a failure to consider matters phonological from a hearer's perspective. But it's worth bearing in mind that most anglophone lojbanists are probably often saying /p t k/ when they think theyre saying /b d g/ - maybe this is a case where Lojbab's "say whatever you like, as long as you make all phonemes distinct" rule has to be relied on. --- And