From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Tue Sep 03 02:45:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 3 Sep 2002 09:45:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 8048 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 09:45:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Sep 2002 09:45:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.86) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2002 09:45:04 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.148] by n3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Sep 2002 09:45:04 -0000 Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 09:45:04 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: pronunciation guide for lessons Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200209030358.XAA26334@mail2.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1374 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "aolung" X-Originating-IP: 212.144.151.252 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=37407270 X-Yahoo-Profile: aolung --- In lojban@y..., John Cowan wrote: > Nick Nicholas scripsit: > > > reading between the lines (same goes for Jorge's response on the > > Wiki): the point should be that I establish a contrast, any contrast, > > in the languages, rather than reproduce the Lojban phonemes? i.e. p > > vs. b for Mandarin, as opposed to p (or b) vs. "does not exist"? Or > > am I overgeneralising? > > Well, I believe that is the correct policy. As long as the distinction > between Lojban /p/ and /b/ is audible, it matters little whether it > is about voicing, aspiration, or both. Okay, agreed! With regard to (labial/dental) stops there usually are the following variants: unvoiced-aspirated (e.g. German, Putonghua, English) unvoiced-unaspirated (e.g. French, Italian, Putonghua) voiced-aspirated (e.g. Hindi?) voiced-unaspirated (e.g. German, English, French, Italian) German, English doesn't use "unvoiced-unaspirated", French, Italian doesn't use the aspirated combinations, Putonghua doesn't take use of the voiced combinations. I think that Putonghua can give the Lojban contrast "unvoiced-aspirated" vs. "voiced-unaspirated" [p/t] : [b/d] pretty well by "unvoiced-aspirated" vs. "unvoiced-unaspirated" [p'/t'] : [p/t] (this being the - moreorless - obsolete Wade-Giles convention) or [p/t] : [b/d] (according modern Pinyin contrast). mu'omi'e .aulun.