Re: [h] approximations (was: /s/ -> /h/ )

On 1 Feb, Vasiliy wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Feb 2000 14:44:21 +0100, Christophe Grandsire
><Christophe.Grandsire@...> wrote:
>
>>At 07:48 01/02/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>>I thought of an example:
>>>
>>>How will you describe English *wh* - in those varieties of English
>>>where 'wet' and 'whet' are not homonymous?
>>>
>>
>>        AFAIK, it is /w_0/, an unvoiced labiovelar approximant. But there
>may be
>>other realisations of it.
>
>This is exactly what I meant: It may be a clearer example of *voiceless
>approximants*.
>
>IMO, if any friction exists in this sound, it is apparently not produced
>by the bilabial articulation.
    It seems to me that it all depends upon how close together
the lips are. ( The smaller the opening through which the air
is forced, the more likelihood of friction, no? )
    For me, "wet" and "whet" are usually homonymous. But if,
for some reason, I want to emphasize the "wh", I tend to purse
my lips together rather tightly, coarticulating the [h] with what,
to my ears, sounds very much like a  (rounded, unvoiced)
bilabial fricative.

Dan Sulani
--------------------------------------------------------------------
likehsna rtem zuv tikuhnuh auag inuvuz vaka'a.

A word is an awesome thing.