[lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics

[Adam Raizen <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

de'i li 2002-12-08 ti'u li 02:51:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e

>Adam:
>> de'i li 2002-12-08 ti'u li 00:06:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e
>> 
>> >> Because there is a greater phonic contrast between [T] and [f] or [s] than
>> >> between [h] and [x] 
>> >
>> >Furthermore, [ihi] is so difficult to articulate that I think we can
>> >safely assume that nobody actually does say [ihi] 
>> 
>> I, for one, certainly do say [ihi], and [coho] and everything else like
>> that clearly, and it is quite distinct from an [x] 
>
>I can believe very readily the bit about it being distinct from [x],
>especially if you do the [x] scrapey. 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).

If by [c,] you mean a voiceless palatal fricative, then I can see what
you mean, as my [h] in [ihi] does approach that, but it is still
distinct. All sounds are affected to some extent by sounds in their
environment, so the fact that the [h] of [ihi] is slightly different
from the [h] of [aha] doesn't mean that it's not an [h]. The [p] of
[po] is more rounded than the [p] of [pi], but they're still the same
sound by all accounts.
 
>> >In other words, the problem is not only that [h] and [x] are rather
>> >similar in isolation, but that there are phonological environments
>> >where the contrast is unfeasibly difficult. I have seen it claimed
>> >that [h] and [x] never contrast in natural languages, though John
>> >has told me that he indirectly infers such a contrast from descriptions 
>> >of Irish 
>> 
>> Arabic contains both, in addition to some other very similar consonants
>> between them, and I am almost certain that it contrasts them. I'm
>> pretty sure that German also contains both, though I don't know whether
>> it contrasts them. Carefully enunciated Hebrew also contains both and
>> contrasts them, 
>
>What are some minimal pairs? Ideally, flanked by [i] vowels...

You may have won a partial battle as far as the [i] vowels go, because
Hebrew does forbid flanking a guttural sound with [i] or [u] (with the
gutturals being [?] (normally dropped between vowels), [x], the voiced
and voiceless pharyngeal fricatives in Biblical Hebrew, (which in
Israeli Hebrew are [?] and [x], respectively), [h], and sometimes r).
However, [ihi] can still occur in foreign words, like [nihilizm] (and I
assume that [ihi] must have occured in the word 'nihil' in Latin,
otherwise the Romans wouldn't have written it like that), though I
don't know of a contrast with [x]. Still, they do contrast in other
positions. [ohel] means 'tent', whereas [oxel] means 'food', both are
the same in Biblical Hebrew. It is a bit difficult to find examples in
Biblical Hebrew, because the distribution of [x] is limited, it being
an allophone of [k], but in Israeli Hebrew it is easier: [Sihek] means
'(he) hiccoughed', whereas [Sixek] is a possible literary form for
'(he) wore (something) down'. [mahul] means 'diluted', whereas [maxul]
means 'forgiven', etc.

>> though nowadays many speakers tend to swallow their
>> [h]'s. Biblical Hebrew, at any rate, certainly contrasted them, in
>> addition to the pharyngeals. I suspect that it's really not so uncommon
>> for languages to contrast the two: [x] is the voiceless fricative at
>> one of the most common points of articulation (the velum), and [h],
>> though not as common as some other consonants, is still fairly common 
>> At any rate, it's far from unheard of for a language to contrast [x]
>> and [h] 
>> 
>> I've heard it claimed (in discussions of conlang phonology) that in no
>> natural language are [h] and [x] allophones; *that* probably is true,
>> and also is good evidence that [h] and [x] are quite distinct 
>
>That's certainly not true. They're free variant allophones in Scouse,
>a dialect of English, and allophones in complementary distribution
>in premodern English.

I stand corrected.

mu'o mi'e .adam.