From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Sun Dec 08 04:57:28 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 12:57:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 17755 invoked from network); 8 Dec 2002 12:57:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Dec 2002 12:57:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Dec 2002 12:57:26 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18L0zu-00032a-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 04:57:26 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18L0zq-00032F-00; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 04:57:22 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 08 Dec 2002 04:57:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.115]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18L0zl-000323-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 04:57:17 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-54-198.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.54.198]) by lmsmtp05.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B5A81FC0C for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2002 13:56:44 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Aesthetics Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 12:58:57 -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: <20021208003117.GB19688@allusion.net> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal X-archive-position: 3290 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 Jordan: > On Sun, Dec 08, 2002 at 12:06:28AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > Jordan: > > > > > > This line of reasoning is bogus anyway though; languages can divide > > > their sounds however they want > > > > Languages don't divide their sounds however they want. Or, if they > > do, then they all want to do it in similar ways. Accordingly, we > > can look at natural languages to see which sorts of contrast are > > easy and which are hard. [T] is very uncommon (contrasting with > > [s] and/or [t]). Contrast between [h] and [x] is even more uncommon. > > The reason most languages "want to do it in similar ways" is due > to two obvious things: (a) common history/cultural diffusion/whathaveyou, > and (b) the range of possible speech-sounds humans make. Languages > which are very different in history from, say, english, divide their > sounds in drastically different ways (e.g. khoisan stuff). But > what I'm *actually* talking about (I gather you weren't really > reading) is that different languages distinguish on things others > don't. For example in english the automatic aspiration of "p" at > the beginning of words is not considered a different sound than > normal "p", but to a mandarin speaker (ti'e) aspiration of "p" > sounds quite different than the normal "p" sound You've lost me. I had read you as saying that reasoning about the robustness of phonetic contrast was bogus, because languages can use whatever contrasts they want. I meant my response to observe that by surveying a wide range of languages, we can discover which sorts of contrast generally are and aren't robust. So I don't understand your reply. If you really think the notion of language-independent robustness of contrast is bogus, then perhaps it is woth discussing further. Otherwise, maybe we should let the discussion lapse. > > There are real books where one can read about this stuff. We don't > > have to rely on our own fallible intuitions here > > I can tell whether [s] and [T] sound alike, and whether [x] and [h] > sound alike *to me*. If you don't accept that, you can piss off The context for that was: > > > On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 03:28:24PM -0500, Craig wrote: > > > > Because there is a greater phonic contrast between [T] and [f] > or [s] than > > > > between [h] and [x] > > > > > > I disagree. To me, [s] sounds almost like [T]. But [x] and [h] > > > sound *totally* different I read your "I disagree" as meaning "I think your statement is false", whereas I guess from your angry response that you intended no more than "My own perceptions are different". I can accept that you can tell how things sound to you, but not that on the basis of how things sound to you you disagree with Craig's general statements about phonic similarity, given that we have whole disciplines of acoustic phonetics, perceptual phonetics, phonology, etc., that combine to afford us some generalizable measure of phonetic similarity. --And.