From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Dec 07 18:35:43 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 02:35:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 98918 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 02:35:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 02:35:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 02:35:43 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18KrIF-0003Y2-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:35:43 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KrIC-0003Xe-00; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:35:40 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:35:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KrI7-0003XV-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:35:35 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gB82fuG9021802 for ; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 20:41:56 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gB82fuYY021801 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 20:41:56 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 20:41:56 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics Message-ID: <20021208024156.GC21580@allusion.net> References: <0H6S007OC43PK8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZmUaFz6apKcXQszQ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0H6S007OC43PK8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 3276 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --ZmUaFz6apKcXQszQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 04:28:07AM +0200, Adam Raizen wrote: > de'i li 2002-12-08 ti'u li 00:06:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e [...] > >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= =20 > >of Irish. >=20 > 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 This reminds me of something I was wondering about. Is the german sound of ch in "ich" an allowed pronunciation of "'"? --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --ZmUaFz6apKcXQszQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE98rF0DrrilS51AZ8RAoODAKDEGfoJq77PcJWbQj1utpJk9l7GNACgtNqR ZkPbUgHpAIFx+93TMAkljOo= =e+eP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZmUaFz6apKcXQszQ--