Re: Alphabet

I have to weigh in on the voiced=soft side.  I have always found the voiced
sounds *much* softer and melifluous.  They blend with the vowels creating
consonance.  The voiceless consonants made a harsh dissonance.  Whatever the
metaphore maybe, voiceless=soft seems to be current among linguists while
the other view seems to be held by many speakers.

Adam

So lift the cup of joy and take a big drink.
In spite of it all it's a beautiful world.
-------Suzanne Knutzen




>From: Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>
>Reply-To: Constructed Languages List <CONLANG@...>
>To: CONLANG@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU
>Subject: Re: Alphabet
>Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 11:34:07 -0500
>
>Nik Taylor wrote:
>>Christian Thalmann wrote:
>> > It completely escapes my understanding how anyone could consider [t] to
>> > be softer than [d], or [f] softer than [v].
>>
>>While I can't understand how [d] or [v] could be considered soft!
>>Voiceless sounds are quieter, softer, they sound more gentle.  [safa]
>>would sound to me like a word for something soft, like, "cloud" or
>>"water" or "sleep" or something, while [zava] would be harder, like
>>"rock", "hit", "hammer" or something of that nature.
>
>Lemme point out that by this logic "hit" is a very poorly designed word!
>
>Personally, I feel pretty much the opposite - [safa] sounds hard, sharp and
>precise, [zava] sounds softer and fuzzier.
>
>Several people have stated that [g] is louder than [k]. Is this backed up
>by
>actual measurements? I wonder because [k] sounds louder to me when I listen
>to myself.
>
>                                              Andreas
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp