[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Am 17.09.2012 03:27, schrieb And Rosta:
selpa'i, On 17/09/2012 00:11:Am 16.09.2012 23:47, schrieb Mike S.:What is the phonological value of <h>, which I have been using experimentally?Nothing but [x, h] makes any sense. Agreed, and probably only one of /x h/ should be allowed. The other alternative is that /h/ is pronounced as the breathy-voiced glottal fricative which is how I suspect most English speakers are pronouncing Lojban <'> anyway, but that's a tricky sound cross-linguistically, isn't it. I remember some Eastern European saying on the Lojban list that he was using [G] for <'>, which I take as another indication that contrastive /h x/ is problematic.Really? [x] is hard to distinguish from [h] for English speakers?No, e.g. /ihi/ and /ixi/ would be hard to distinguish for human beings in general.
So am I an exception? I couldn't really believe that, so I opened Audacity and recorded [ihi] and [ixi] in random order. The difference is like night and day to me, so I'm not sure what this is all about.
I think as long as <'> doesn't become [?], I won't compain.There had been a consensus for <'> being [?]! Xorban <'>, that is. There's no consensus on whether Lojban <'> has any reflex in Xorban.
Oh! Uhm... okay :) . I had expected <'> to be [h]. Don't you then have two [?], once as <'> and once as <q> ?
mu'o mi'e la selpa'i -- pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo doị mèlbi mlenì'u .i do càtlu ki'u ma fe la xàmpre ŭu .i do tìnsa càrmi gi'e sìrji se tàrmi .i taị bo pu cìtka lo gràna ku