From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Dec 07 18:05:23 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 02:05:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 99153 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 02:05:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 02:05:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 02:05:23 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Kqot-00030u-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:05:23 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Kqoq-0002zr-00; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:05:20 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:05:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr ([139.179.30.24]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Kqol-0002zi-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:05:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5887927192 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 04:04:44 +0200 (EET) Received: from bilkent.edu.tr (ppp12.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr [139.179.111.14]) by manyas.bcc.bilkent.edu.tr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1C1270D5 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 04:04:42 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <3DF29C79.4000609@bilkent.edu.tr> Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 03:12:25 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics References: <5.2.0.9.0.20021207202338.00a9abd0@pop.east.cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS snapshot-20020531 X-archive-position: 3266 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: robin@bilkent.edu.tr Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Turner From: Robin Turner Reply-To: robin@bilkent.edu.tr X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out Robert LeChevalier wrote: > At 12:06 AM 12/8/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > >>Craig to Jordan: >> >>>>Why is [h] not an optimal pronunciation for '? (Yes I know the >>>>title of the thread is 'aesthetics', but you seem to be implying >>>>there's some kind of reason) >>> >>>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]. > > > Both Nora and I say it, and we can clearly distinguish between that and ixi > when said by the other. For me ixi sounds more like "ici" than "ihi". > > "ifi" and "iTi seem to closer to me than any of the others. > > So far as I know, only "iTi" has been tried as an alternate realization of > "i'i" instead of "ihi". Thomeone in the firth clath tried using T and it > really did thound like he lithped. When he tried for clear separation from > "s", it sounded instead like f. > > lojbab > Surely anyone who can say "uhuh" can say "ihi". robin.tr -- "Do unto others what you would like others to do unto you. And have fun doing it." - Linus Torvalds Robin Turner IDMYO, Bilkent University Ankara 06533 Turkey www.bilkent.edu.tr/~robin