Subject: RE: [lojban] gizmu

From: "And Rosta" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 18:40:20 +0100

Lionel:
> And:
> > Out of curiosity, I wonder to what extent Lojbanists anglicize
> > the pronunciation of Lojban words when used in English.
> > For example, I unconsciously anglicize _gismu_ to /gizmu/.
> > (I have other strange mispronunciations too, but they are 
> >not obvious anglicizations.)

[e.g. I *say* /luZvo/ but *hear in my mind's ear* /luvo/. I also say
/rafci/ = /rafSi/. Lord knows why.]

> What you describe with {gismu} is not restricted to anglicization
> but is a general phonetic behaviour, present in numerous natlangs.
> It is called in phonetic linguistic 'partial assimilation' 
> (I hope I translated well this technical term :-):
> whenever a unvoiced consonnant is followed by a voiced one
> or vice-versa the natural tendency of phonetic organs is to simplify
> the necessary vibrato triggering or stopping of the vocal chords, and
> to let the second consonnant to partially assimilate the first, that is
> the first one changes its voiced or unvoiced character but keeps
> its articulation.
> For instance in french: {anecdote} ('c' is voiced in 'g')
> or {obtenir} ('b' is unvoiced in 'p')
> 
> I see no reason why lojban will be spared this natural tendency.
> In french, even if it is usually seen as bad accent to do it, and people
> do try to avoid it in formal speech, it always shows in current usage:
> human laziness is always the winner :-)

Assimilation is natural, yet language-particular. Contrast russian
_glasnost_ /glasnost/ with English /glaznost/. Also contrast English 
_prism_ /prizm/, prison /prizn/ with _listen_, /lisn/. 

I don't know what will happen with Lojban pronunciation. If most
people were bufferers, then I think that phonetic distortions would
be few, but I suspect that for nonbufferers -- i.e. almost everybody,
even me when I forget to be a bufferer -- there is a lost of phonetic
distortion.

---And.