From arntrich@stud.ntnu.no Tue Dec 10 10:49:30 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: arntrich@stud.ntnu.no X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 10 Dec 2002 18:49:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 9385 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 18:49:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Dec 2002 18:49:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO flaske.stud.ntnu.no) (129.241.56.72) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 18:49:30 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by flaske.stud.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F25FF56B for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:48:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from jeeves.stud.ntnu.no (jeeves [129.241.56.14]) by flaske.stud.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id D100BFF273 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:48:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (arntrich@localhost) by jeeves.stud.ntnu.no (8.11.6/8.10.0.Beta12) with ESMTP id gBAImsQ09553 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:48:54 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: jeeves.stud.ntnu.no: arntrich owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:48:54 +0100 (MET) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics In-Reply-To: <200212101519.KAA29715@mail2.reutershealth.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 From: Arnt Richard Johansen X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=810685 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbo On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, John Cowan wrote: > Invent Yourself scripsit: > > > Indeed. I can go "ihihi" without moving anything at all! For the "i" I > > voice, and for the "h" I devoice and increase the aspiration. > > In that case you are doing what I am doing: using [C], IPA c-cedilla, > as the realization of /h/. Perfectly legitimate thing to do, but > not the same as IPA [h], which is realized in the back of the throat. > Your /h/ in u'u is probably a lot closer to [h]. I don't understand why you're saying that the IPA [h] is realized in the back of the throat. I don't have my _Handbook of the IPA_ at hand, but I believe that the conventional three-feature description of it is "voiceless glottal fricative". Note that the glottis is in the larynx, so this specification does not say anything about how the tongue is configured. Thus, there should be little or no co-articulatory effects. When I did one semester of phonetics last year, I learnt an alternative analysis. I was told that the IPA [h] might be more accurately described as a vocoid (of unspecified frontness/openness) with voiceless/whispered phonation. This makes sense, since the airflow above the larynx is unobstructed, which is the defining criterion of a vocoid.[1] > This is why I like to explain ' in terms of voicelessness of the surround= ing > vowels rather than in terms of [h], and why "h" isn't a particularly good > representation of it. I don't see why. Both of the above analyses fit with the description in the CLL. --=20 Arnt Richard Johansen http://people.fix.no/arj/ =BFTiene Cuba? [1] An interesting side-effect of this is that nasals are referred to as "nasal vocoids".