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

Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:

> On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:10:39AM +1000, Tristan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 00:28, Andreas Johansson wrote:
> > > Also, it seems to me that Englishers tend to hear [dZ_0] as /dZ/ rather
> > > than /tS/. Nativers?
>
> All of this [voiced_0] vs [unvoiced] stuff is still very mysterious to
> me.  I have no clue how to pronounce [dZ_0] or [v_0] other than
> like [tS] and [f].  And if I try to distinguish stops that way,
> e.g. [d_0] vs [t], the only difference is that the former comes out
> [t] and the latter comes out [t_h].
In my 'lect of Swedish, and, according to what I'm told, thru most of the
Germanic family, voiced stops are usually also lenis and unaspirated, while
the voiceless ones are also fortis and (except after /s/) aspirated. Thus,
dropping the voicing of the voiced ones does not result in sounds identical to
the voiceless ones. At least I carry this threefold division over to
affricates, [dZ_0] differs from [dZ] in voicing, from [tS] by being lenis and
unaspirated. My impression is that native English speakers' mapping of these
assigns [dZ_0] to /dZ/ - but they've undoubtly also been help by context to
deduce what I've meant.

For [v_0], in my, and I think most, variety of Swedish /f/ is necessarily
voiceless and fortis, while /v/ is necessarily lenis, but can be either voiced
or voiceless. [f_v] doesn't normally occur - hard to say if I'd hear it as /f/
or /v/ if someone was using it and context didn't obviously clarify.

                                                             Andreas