Re: Harsh vs. Soft Sounds

At 11:36 AM 8/29/03 -0700, you wrote:
>Sebastian Adems sikyal:
>
> > Well, for instance, French would be considered soft, where as a more
> > guttural sounding language (can't think of anything right now, maybe LotR
> > Orc tongues?)
>
>Please quote the material you're responding to, as I'm doing.
>
>I think French is one of the most unaesthetic languages I've ever heard.
Ok, good.  I didn't want to be the first one to express the opinion that I
didn't like the way French sounds.  I know that there are French-speakers
on the list, and I don't want my remarks to be taken personally.  It's just
a matter of personal preference.  I've always thought it was funny, too,
because almost everyone says what a beautiful language French is, and I've
never thought so.  (Not that I don't like French, per se, I just don't care
for the way it sounds spoken.)

>But in any case, "harsh" vs. "soft" is a pretty subjective distinction,
I'd say that it's very subjective.  I've heard the opinion expressed
frequently that German is a harsh and guttural language, but I have heard
German spoken and thought that it sounded lovely and that the velar
fricatives sounded soft instead of harsh.

>and you haven't really defined it. I prefer "soft" sounding languages, by
>which I mean languages dominated by voiceless sounds and without too many
>velars or other "gutterals".
And then there's something like Danish (which sounds much more comfortable
in my ears than French.)  Danish is, in many ways, a very soft, blurry
language to the ears...but it's got all those glottal stops and creaky
voice all over the place.  What does one make of that?

Isidora
just adding to the confusion