Message-ID: <3663FBBF.EE894E5E@bcc.bilkent.edu.tr>
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 16:22:56 +0200
From: Robin Turner <robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR>
To: Lojban list <lojban@onelist.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.3.95.981201134850.3119A-100000@wtao97.oas>
Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [lojban] Re: X-files
Content-Length: 1317
Lines: 36


From: Robin Turner <robin@Bilkent.EDU.TR>

PILCH Hartmut wrote:

> > Probably both the German sounds in "ich" and "ach" would work.  I am not sure
> > that either of them is described with a different symbol from /x/.
>
> these are contextual allophones: the palatalized one after front (e i \"a
> \"o \"u) vowels, as in "ich", the non-palatalized one after back (a o u)
> vowels, as in "Bach".
>
> In Modern Greek it works the opposite way: palatalized *before* front
> vowels (as in "oxi"  for "no"), non-palatalized *before* back vowels (as
> in "mixaniki" for "mechanics").
>
> For a conlang, one of these two distributions would have to be chosen.
> I'd prefer to avoid the choice and use only a non-palatalized x.
>

I would have thought that we could just as easily leave it up to the speaker.  I
palatalise all the time, simply because I prefer the sound.

co'o mi'e robin.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help support ONElist, while generating interest in your product or
service. ONElist has a variety of advertising packages. Visit
http://www.onelist.com/advert.html for more information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com