From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Thu Jun 29 00:56:46 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22643 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2000 07:56:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 29 Jun 2000 07:56:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.135) by mta1 with SMTP; 29 Jun 2000 07:56:43 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.126] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 29 Jun 2000 07:56:43 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:56:37 -0000 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: PLEA: Chinese names Message-ID: <8jevfl+42e0@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <3959B041.792C@math.bas.bg> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 641 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Alfred_W._Tueting_(T=FCting)?=" --- In lojban@egroups.com, Ivan A Derzhanski wrote: > Using /r/ doesn't seem to be a good idea, because syllabic > (retroflex) /r/ does exist in Mandarin -- _shi_ and _shir_ > are different syllables (and _shi_ is different from _she_, > although _shir_ and _sher_ sound the same). Would you please give some examples for the phonem contrast of _shi_ and _shir_ (as I can't imagine! - it's both: /cr/)? > (and _shi_ is different from _she_ that's right, but: /cr/ and /cy/ > although _shir_ and _sher_ sound the same) no - _shir_ doesn't seem to exist (it's py: shi /cr/); sher is py: she-er /cy,r/ (/cy/+/yr/) .aulun.