From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxCt0YftBBoEVG40nA@googlegroups.com Sun Apr 10 10:28:33 2011 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q8yR1-0001g5-5q; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:32 -0700 Received: by wya21 with SMTP id 21sf5227666wya.16 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eE2Kv+W0bb389YBEchHQUtVzQEV+1dQ9zjzGFmYh+Vo=; b=hb1kqQfccxbenaEgjhVFKRMbNJ704GSbaT5nYWGf6yURxE0bU3un+LWfkYEmULM5Me Z3NegMq8aJsgV4pxsF6EKaATWDQemXrO87flubz3488uZAbkGEpRn9HLtiEusWpryP9U 9ugsr/ESqjv3D2Ts673XG8RG+8HNlVhGZ0NIw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=TeV2pVOK5wQAfyTU2xhkTSw9xiHYA5Nt26S8Im7yLWbSrAi/0fCqi3rne6w61Rfqbj Q6varMoROsWN0TiXzAZvWrK3T+syQdjMDktgNfiJG17UEv4b3WHkp7cDjbrz6kOAmczE krj6CF4Tq7uGjAZ3WLOP+KM9NtC9RiQIr6hvQ= Received: by 10.216.16.9 with SMTP id g9mr999743weg.28.1302456493223; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.69.10 with SMTP id m10ls949381wed.1.p; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.121.208 with SMTP id r58mr112672weh.10.1302456492043; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.121.208 with SMTP id r58mr112671weh.10.1302456492026; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f54.google.com (mail-ww0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h6si623102wes.3.2011.04.10.10.28.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.54; Received: by wwd20 with SMTP id 20so7148185wwd.35 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.61.13 with SMTP id r13mr4377664wbh.52.1302456491741; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.73] (87-194-76-177.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.177]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ed10sm2896125wbb.66.2011.04.10.10.28.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 10 Apr 2011 10:28:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DA1E8A7.9080407@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 18:28:07 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] phonetics was: what's the deal with place tags? References: <0a74da06-07cf-4b52-a329-ed0ebbae2f5b@u8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <4DA19614.9040908@gmail.com> <201104100938.14566.phma@phma.optus.nu> In-Reply-To: <201104100938.14566.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pierre Abbat, On 10/04/2011 14:38: > On Sunday 10 April 2011 07:35:48 And Rosta wrote: >> You're kind of missing the point. It doesn't matter at all if a Lojban >> speaker has trouble saying [zb] or [ml], because /z(%)b/ and /m(%)l/ can= be >> realized not only as [zb] and [ml] but also as [z =C2=A3 b] and [m =C2= =A3 l], where >> "=C2=A3" stands for whatever the realization of % is. >> >> Furthermore, relevant considerations go beyond mere articulatory difficu= lty >> to include also acoustic distinctiveness. For example, even if [ml] is e= asy >> to say, it might be hard for either speaker or hearer to reliably >> distinguish /lemlatu/ [lemlatu] from /lemblatu/ [lemblatu], but much eas= ier >> to distinguish /lem%latu/ [lemylatu] from /lemblatu/ [lemblatu]. Likewis= e >> for /ns/ vs /nts/ and other clusters; judicious use of the buffer vowel = can >> mitigate some of the failings of Lojban phonology. > > /nts/ isn't allowed. Yes, sorry -- change the examples to /ms/ vs /mps/, /mc/ vs /mpc/, /mj/ vs = /mbj/. Conversely, the existence of the buffer vowel renders the prohibition of cl= usters unnecessary; any consonant cluster whatever could be unproblematical= ly permitted. > I don't know about how buffer vowels work in natlangs, but I do know ther= e is > at least one. Armenian has both a buffer vowel and a letter for schwa. Fr= om > what I've read, they're pronounced the same. I don't know of any natural language with buffer vowels (because my knowled= ge is scanty, not because I know there aren't any). What makes the Armenian= buffer vowel a buffer vowel? I guess the Lojban buffer vowel has two key characteristics: (1) it doesn't contrast with phonetic zero interconsonantally, (2) its realization is defined as "anything distinct from the other vowels"= (-- comparable to the realization rule for /'/). (CLL also says the realiz= ation must be as close to schwa as possible but clearly distinct from schwa= , so I ignore this stipulation as contradictory, though I suppose CLL could= quite easily be read as implicitly stipulating /%/ =3D [=C9=99] and /y/ = =3D [=C9=99=CB=90].) (1) seems pretty straightforward. In some accents of English schwa doesn't = contrast with phonetic zero in some environments, and [=CA=94] doesn't cont= rast with zero before an intonation-phrase-initial vowel. The obvious analy= sis in such cases is a bare structural position that may or may not be fill= ed with default phonetic content. So Lojban is to be analysed as a strict C= V language. (2) is much weirder, and one suspects it of being unnatural. However, there= 's a similarish case in (English) English where the range of realizations o= f /r/ across idiolects (but not within idiolects) can be summed up as "any = approximant that is not already the realization of another phoneme". --And. --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.