From sentto-44114-17788-1039362392-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sun Dec 08 07:47:11 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 08 Dec 2002 07:47:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.64]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18L3e7-0001PG-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 07:47:08 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-17788-1039362392-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.97] by n1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Dec 2002 15:46:33 -0000 X-Sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Dec 2002 15:46:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 67979 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 15:46:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 15:46:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail025.syd.optusnet.com.au) (210.49.20.147) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 15:46:31 -0000 Received: from optushome.com.au (c17180.brasd1.vic.optusnet.com.au [210.49.155.40]) by mail025.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gB8FkUF32048 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 02:46:30 +1100 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-Id: <3825DFD6-0AC4-11D7-A28E-003065D4EC72@optushome.com.au> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.548) From: Nick Nicholas X-Yahoo-Profile: opoudjis MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 02:46:30 +1100 Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3298 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: opoudjis@optushome.com.au Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list > As for the [ihi] that you and > Lojbab report yourselves saying, well -- maybe I can listen when we > meet... It's not that I'm convinced that I'm right and you're wrong, > but [ihi] seems so incredibly difficult to articulate; I say [ic,i], > or else [i i_ i] (where i_ is breathy voiced). And, come come. Surely they're pronouncing it with a voiced h (h in Kirshenbaum IPA, hooktop-h); and surely a voiced h should be a licit allophone of the prescribed voiceless h. [ihi] is indeed hard; but not only is [ihi] not hard, it's what English speakers do naturally (and Hindi speakers too, I've found; I had no hesitation in making that voiced intervocalic h the Hindi rendering of ' .) In fact, since the prescription is merely for a vowel hiatus barrier, I'd be much happier with voiced h than lateral fricatives or alveolar clicks or whatever else Craig currently chooses. :-) What's this? John pronounces it as [iCi]? Well, there are Germans in his kin. But John, you say you turn off voicing; why do you need to? I know the prescription says 'unvoiced fricative', but why need it be unvoiced? And would you claim h is an illegitimate rendering of ' ? After all, you claim h in "Aha" as the definition of ' --- and that h is usually voiced, I'd have thought. ### ki egeire arga ta sthqia ta qlimmena;#Nick Nicholas, French/Italian san ahdoni pou se nuxtia anoijiata # University of Melbourne thn wra pou kelahda epnixth, wimena! # nickn@unimelb.edu.au stis murwdies kai st' anqismena bata.# http://www.opoudjis.net -- N. Kazantzakhs, Tertsines: Xristos# To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/