Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the brain]
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, July 3, 2003, 14:51 |
|---|
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?
-Mark
Reply