Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the brain]

Staving Mark J Reed:
>On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 03:27:31PM +0100, Peter Bleackley wrote:
> > At 10:06 03/07/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:22:33PM +0100, Peter Bleackley wrote:
> > >>                 Underlying                      Realisation
> > >>                                         Normal speech   Whispered
> > >> Voiceless       /c/                     [c]             [c]
> > >> Voiced          /q/                     [q]             [c_h]
> > >>
> > >
> > >I think you've got that backwards.  The phonetic _h should go with the
> > >phoneme whose underlying form is voiceless.
> >
> > Interesting, and very counter-intuitive.
>
>How so?  Aspirated stops are naturally more forceful than
>non-aspirated, and voiceless stops are naturally more forceful
>than voiced ones (at least in English; see earlier discussion re:
>fortis/lenis).  So how is it counter-intuitive that the more forceful
>stop in full voice remains the more forceful stop when whispered?
I was thinking that voiced stop = stop + voice
                      aspirated stop = stop + aspirate
stop => stop
voice => aspirate

Pete

Replies