From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Dec 07 20:05:59 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 04:05:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 6723 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 04:05:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 04:05:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 04:05:58 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Ksha-0004zd-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 20:05:58 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KshW-0004zJ-00; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 20:05:54 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Dec 2002 20:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.24]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18KshR-0004z5-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 20:05:50 -0800 Received: from default ([62.0.148.63]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002)) with SMTP id <0H6S007SW8ORYV@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 06:05:18 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 06:07:11 +0200 Subject: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics To: "lojban-list@lojban.org" Message-id: <0H6S007SX8OSYV@mxout3.netvision.net.il> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [eg] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 3283 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 02:51:00 la'o zoi. And Rosta .zoi cusku di'e >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). If by [c,] you mean a voiceless palatal fricative, then I can see what you mean, as my [h] in [ihi] does approach that, but it is still distinct. All sounds are affected to some extent by sounds in their environment, so the fact that the [h] of [ihi] is slightly different from the [h] of [aha] doesn't mean that it's not an [h]. The [p] of [po] is more rounded than the [p] of [pi], but they're still the same sound by all accounts. >> >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... You may have won a partial battle as far as the [i] vowels go, because Hebrew does forbid flanking a guttural sound with [i] or [u] (with the gutturals being [?] (normally dropped between vowels), [x], the voiced and voiceless pharyngeal fricatives in Biblical Hebrew, (which in Israeli Hebrew are [?] and [x], respectively), [h], and sometimes r). However, [ihi] can still occur in foreign words, like [nihilizm] (and I assume that [ihi] must have occured in the word 'nihil' in Latin, otherwise the Romans wouldn't have written it like that), though I don't know of a contrast with [x]. Still, they do contrast in other positions. [ohel] means 'tent', whereas [oxel] means 'food', both are the same in Biblical Hebrew. It is a bit difficult to find examples in Biblical Hebrew, because the distribution of [x] is limited, it being an allophone of [k], but in Israeli Hebrew it is easier: [Sihek] means '(he) hiccoughed', whereas [Sixek] is a possible literary form for '(he) wore (something) down'. [mahul] means 'diluted', whereas [maxul] means 'forgiven', etc. >> 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. I stand corrected. mu'o mi'e .adam.