Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [h] (was: RE: Re: Aesthetics

From: Arnt Richard Johansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 19:48:54 +0100 (MET)

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 surrounding
> 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.

-- 
Arnt Richard Johansen http://people.fix.no/arj/
¿Tiene Cuba?

[1] An interesting side-effect of this is that nasals are referred to as
"nasal vocoids".