Re: Alphabet

On Fri, 2 Nov 2001 13:59:36 +0100 Christian Thalmann <cinga@...>
writes:

Hehe.  I seem to have started a bit of an argument . . . .

> It completely escapes my understanding how anyone could consider [t]
> to be softer than [d], or [f] softer than [v].  Try saying [afata] and
> [avada], that should make it clear.  In the first utterance, the
> consonants interrupt the flow of the word with percussive
> unvoicedness, while the second word glides off the tongue in a single
soft
> mellifluous curve.
True, but as others have pointed out the voiceless sounds are quieter,
more hushed, and for me at least I associate them with soft, warm,
pleasant things.  Voiced sounds, on the other hand, are blockier, louder,
and firmer.  Ultimately it comes down to an aesthetic judgement--I prefer
voiceless sounds, but that's obviously not a universal.

> As for the physical aspect:  Unvoiced consonants have a lot of
> high-frequency spikes, like percussion instruments in music, while
> voiced ones have much smoother Fourier signatures, like plucked
> strings.
I hadn't thought of this, but you're right.  Not that it changes my
opinion ;-)

Others have also pointed out that voiced sounds are easier to produce,
but this isn't necessarily true.  Typologically voiced obstruents are way
more marked than voiceless obstruents.  There are many languages that
lack voiced stops, but none that lack voiceless stops, and there are even
more that lack voiced fricatives, but far fewer that lack voiceless
fricatives.

Jesse S. Bangs     Pelíran
jaspax@ juno.com
"We couldn't all be cowboys
Some of us are clowns" --Counting Crows