From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Dec 07 16:05:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 8 Dec 2002 00:05:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 15263 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 00:05:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 00:05:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 00:05:08 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18KowW-0001Zb-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:05:08 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KowL-0001Yc-00; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:04:57 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:04:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KowC-0001Xz-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 16:04:48 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-59-137.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.59.137]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 386883D442 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 01:04:17 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Aesthetics Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 00:06:28 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <20021207204604.GA15906@allusion.net> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3257 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jordan: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 03:28:24PM -0500, Craig wrote: > > Because there is a greater phonic contrast between [T] and [f] or [s] than > > between [h] and [x] > > I disagree. To me, [s] sounds almost like [T]. But [x] and [h] > sound *totally* different > > This line of reasoning is bogus anyway though; languages can divide > their sounds however they want Languages don't divide their sounds however they want. Or, if they do, then they all want to do it in similar ways. Accordingly, we can look at natural languages to see which sorts of contrast are easy and which are hard. [T] is very uncommon (contrasting with [s] and/or [t]). Contrast between [h] and [x] is even more uncommon. There are real books where one can read about this stuff. We don't have to rely on our own fallible intuitions here. --And.