Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tHZLK-0000ZUC; Mon, 20 Nov 95 18:45 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 6B4D2E3D ; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:45:17 +0100 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:30:34 -0800 Reply-To: jimc@MATH.UCLA.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jim Carter Subject: Re: Goran on phonology X-To: lojban@cuvmb.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Nov 95 09:01:38 +0700." <9511190805.AA00203@julia.math.ucla.edu> Content-Length: 804 Lines: 16 > ... 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