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

Raymond Brown wrote:
> Personally, I don't think there is a hard and fast division between
> fricatives & approximants - just two extremes: no friction on the far
> approximant 'left' through to very rasping friction on the fricative
> 'right', so to speak, with many (possibly most) sounds falling somewhere
> between.
Exactly.  So, if there's no rigid distinction, why not use "approximate"
for "none to very little friction".  Under your definition, there's no
such thing as a voiceless approximate, so that the voiceless version of
/j/ is a unique thing, a "weak fricative" so to speak.  Well, that means
that "approximate" can only be [+voice] and "weak fricative" only
[-voice] - in, so to speak, complimentary distribution.  It seems
logical to give one name to the two, especially since no other classes
of sounds depend on voice; stops, fricatives, nasals, affricates, even
clicks and glottalics, can all be voiced or unvoiced.

--
"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