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

From: "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?
Well, [dZ_0] would be unaspirated, which generally does tend to sound voiced to
native English speakers.

> 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].
Well, in most phonemic systems, /v/ and /f/, or /t/ and /d/ for example may
differ in methods other than voicing, such as aspiration or fortistude.  On its
own [v_0] as opposed to [f] only makes sense within a language, when these other
features are specified, 'cause canonically there shouldnt be a difference.
(The all-legitimate use of [_0] is for symbols that dont have a voiceless
correspondent, such as [r].)

    *Muke!
--
http://www.frath.net/