On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:47 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com
<mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's phonetically impractical to get [h] between most vowels,
because a criterion for [h] is that there is no aerodynamically
significant supraglottal narrowing of stricture. So while [h] for
/'/ in /e'e/ or /y'y/ is practicable, [h] for /'/ in, say, /o'o/ or
/u'u/ or /i'i/ is not (because the flanking vowels create
aerodynamically significant supraglottal stricture).
One can easily observe that [aha] and [axa] are rather easy to
differentiate, whereas /i'i/ and /ixi/ will be effectively
indistinguishable (as [aça]) unless a very different allophone of
/'/, such as [θ], is used.
--And.
Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG, On 30/09/2010 01:48:
Krzysztof Sobolewski wrote:
Dnia środa, 29 września 2010 o 19:13:54 Jorge Llambías
napisał(a):
2010/9/29 Krzysztof Sobolewski <jezuch@interia.pl
<mailto:jezuch@interia.pl>>:
So could some confirm that using the same sound for
{x} and {'} does not introduce ambiguity? :)
It introduces plenty of ambiguity. Just consider any
CV'V cmavo for a
start, which becomes indistinguishable from the two
cmavo CV xV.
Well then, I think I'll stick with silent {'}. But this is
problematic with things like {du'u} or {zo'o}. Is there any
hope for people who don't see (hear) any difference between
[x] and [h] (both in IPA, according to Wikipedia)? ;)
I haven't been following this, but "'" can be any voiceless
glide (approximant), not necessarily IPA "h".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximant_consonant
discusses this, and gives several examples. It says this about "h"
Occasionally, the glottal "fricatives" are called
approximants, since
[h] typically has no more frication than voiceless
approximants, but
> they are often phonations of the glottis without any accompanying
> manner or place of articulation.
suggesting that the thing to avoid in distinguishing x and h is
the noticeable frication. Since I don't know Polish, I can't
help beyond that point. But perhaps our Russian native speakers
have a similar problem and could comment.
(People have at times chosen to express the rule as "any
non-lojbanic voiceless consonant", with the most striking
example being someone here in Virginia who used a voiceless "th"
fricative. As I recall, it sounded real funny, but it was
understandable.)
lojbab
--
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
<mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
<mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
--
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.