Re: /s/ -> /h/ [was: Re: Betreft: Re: k(w)->p]

Raymond Brown wrote:
> That, I believe, is the common understanding of these terms. It is what
> I've understood for 40 years or so.  In that analysis it simply does not
> make sense to talk about voiceless approximants - as soon as these souns
> are devoiced there is friction.
I disagree.  /j_0/ may have a VERY slight friction, but it's far less
friction than /C/.  Unless you want to come up with a new term to
describe that difference, "weak fricative", perhaps?, voiceless
aproximate is quite adequate.

> this analysis regards, e.g. the [h] in [h&t] as the voiceless
> equivalent of [&], and the [h] in [hIt] as the voiceless equivalent of [I],
> etc.  In such an analysis, of course, there are as many aitches as vowels,
> each being, so to speak, a voiceless vowel, i.e. voiceless approximant.
Actually, I quite agree with that analysis.  I can find absolutely on
friction in MY pronunciation of /h/, altho I have heard friction in some
idiolects.  To me, /h/ is a voiceless vowel, with allophones [I_0],
[&_0], etc.  I wonder if some of this debate arises from simply
different linguists' idiolects?

--
"If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men
believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the remembrance of
the city of God!" - Ralph Waldo Emerson
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor