From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Jun 22 07:30:04 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21062 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2000 14:30:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Jun 2000 14:30:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO b05.egroups.com) (10.1.2.184) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Jun 2000 14:30:02 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.99] by b05.egroups.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2000 14:25:24 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:25:19 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: on Lojban pronunciation Message-ID: <8it7kf+68ob@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1270 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" coi After giving it a try producing a Lojban audio sample of xorxes' Lorca translation, one of our members kindly visiting my site had pointed out to me that the Lojban /x/ was to pronounce like German 'ch' in 'Bach' or Spanish 'jinete' etc.. This for sure is the rule defined. (Meanwhile I have changed the audio file.) Since in German the pronunciation of the 'ch'-fricative changes from guttural (Bach=creek, Rache=vengence) to about central- palatal (ich=I, nicht=not) over somewhat in between (echt=genuine, schlecht=bad) depending on the accompaning vowel respective, I'd - for me - tend to pronounce it different for /xance/, /xekri/ and /xirma/. According to Lojban rules, the different pronunciations for /r/ (and I think - quite unexpressed and informal - /l/ too) is free for personal/national usage. This should be the same with /x/, because its variations indeed having no *morphemic* functions! (French - and maybe Chinese - speaking Lojbanists excluded for ambiguous /x/=/c/ (French) or /x/=/s/ (pinyin 'x'/W.-G. 'hs'). What is your opinion on this? BTW, I've been wondering anyway, how a conlang constructed by English speaking people includes 'rough' sounds like that /x/ Don't they show kind of a masochist trait? ;-) co'o mi'e .aulun: