Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics

From: Adam Raizen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 04:28:07 +0200

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.