From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sat Dec 07 18:50:34 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 02:50:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 7617 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 02:50:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 02:50:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 02:50:33 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18KrWb-0003kF-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:50:33 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KrWG-0003js-00; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:50:12 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:50:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KrVv-0003ik-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 18:49:51 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-58-82.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.58.82]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B15A3D0FE for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 03:49:16 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 02:51:28 -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: <0H6S007OC43PK8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3278 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 Adam: > 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] I can believe very readily the bit about it being distinct from [x], especially if you do the [x] scrapey. As for the [ihi] that you and Lojbab report yourselves saying, well -- maybe I can listen when we meet... It's not that I'm convinced that I'm right and you're wrong, but [ihi] seems so incredibly difficult to articulate; I say [ic,i], or else [i i_ i] (where i_ is breathy voiced). > >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, What are some minimal pairs? Ideally, flanked by [i] vowels... > 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 That's certainly not true. They're free variant allophones in Scouse, a dialect of English, and allophones in complementary distribution in premodern English. --And.