[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] Question on {z} vs. {dz} and {ts}

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
Today I was reminded of one "flaw" in phonology namely, the presense of [z] in Lojban.

Mandarin doesn't have it/has it as an allophone of t͡s.


So my question is: what would be the minimally destroying changes to remove [z] from the language or to remove {dz} instead so that Mandarin speakers can use t͡s to mean [z]. I know that replacing "voiced/voiceless" distinction with "non-aspirated-semi-voiced/aspirated-voiceless" might not be embraced easily but since Chinese is one of the source languages may be something could be done to make their life happier?

I suppose to do that one needs to always insert buffer between {dz}, never pronounce {dz} as an affricate and may be even always insert {y} in {radzu'e}. 

I never knew that [z] was an allophone of Mandarin /t͡s/.  I am curious, do you know how well Mandarin speakers manage with Lojban's voiced plosives /b d g/?  Are [b d g] allophones of Mandarin /p t k/?






 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.