From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Dec 07 18:26:54 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 02:26:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 1261 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 02:26:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 02:26:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 02:26:54 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Kr9i-0003Mu-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:26:54 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Kr9f-0003Mb-00; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:26:51 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:26:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.20]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Kr9a-0003ML-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:26:46 -0800 Received: from default ([62.0.146.210]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002)) with SMTP id <0H6S007OB43OK8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 04:26:14 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 04:28:07 +0200 Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics To: "lojban-list@lojban.org" Message-id: <0H6S007OC43PK8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [eg] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 3273 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: araizen@cs.huji.ac.il Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Adam Raizen From: Adam Raizen Reply-To: araizen@cs.huji.ac.il X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out de'i li 2002-12-08 ti'u li 00:06:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e >> 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]. I, for one, certainly do say [ihi], and [coho] and everything else like that clearly, and it is quite distinct from an [x]. >In other words, the problem is not only that [h] and [x] are rather >similar in isolation, but that there are phonological environments >where the contrast is unfeasibly difficult. I have seen it claimed >that [h] and [x] never contrast in natural languages, though John >has told me that he indirectly infers such a contrast from descriptions >of Irish. Arabic contains both, in addition to some other very similar consonants between them, and I am almost certain that it contrasts them. I'm pretty sure that German also contains both, though I don't know whether it contrasts them. Carefully enunciated Hebrew also contains both and contrasts them, though nowadays many speakers tend to swallow their [h]'s. Biblical Hebrew, at any rate, certainly contrasted them, in addition to the pharyngeals. I suspect that it's really not so uncommon for languages to contrast the two: [x] is the voiceless fricative at one of the most common points of articulation (the velum), and [h], though not as common as some other consonants, is still fairly common. At any rate, it's far from unheard of for a language to contrast [x] and [h]. I've heard it claimed (in discussions of conlang phonology) that in no natural language are [h] and [x] allophones; *that* probably is true, and also is good evidence that [h] and [x] are quite distinct. mu'o mi'e .adam.