Re: "Essiness, Ishiness, Veeiness, Aitchiness & /X/" (was: none)

Christophe wrote:
>Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 21:24:52 +0100
>
>En réponse à Andreas Johansson <and_yo@...>:
>
> >
> > Gak! I've for some reason of visual similarity always assumed that SAMPA
> > /X/
> > was IPA chi
>
>But it indeed is! It's just that IPA chi *is* the voiceless uvular
>fricative :)) .
>
>, that is, back palatal voiceless fricative,
>
>What's that for a sound? The palatal voiceless fricative is /C/ in X-SAMPA
>(c-
>cedilla in IPA), but I never heard of a *back* palatal voiceless fricative.
>Whatever it is, that description is not official IPA...
>
>  heard in
> > Ducth
> > "zich" (according to a book at school, at least - surely there's
> > dialectal
> > differences).
>
>Surely, but AFAIK Dutch ch has exactly the same sound as g, namely /G/ or
>/x/
>depending on dialect. Here for instance zich is pronounced /zix/...
As I stated in the "chi" post, I seem to've been mislead by a non-standard
use in an old book I borrowed in school two years ago or so. Anyways, it had
signs for front palatal, back palatal, front velar and back velar fricatives
(but only for palatal, front velar and back velar for other kinds of
consonants). "Front velar" was what we usually call "velar", "back velar"
what we call "uvular". For the "front palatals" they used the [C] and [j\]
signs, for "back palatal" they used chi and I don't remember what for the
voiced version. I don't remember what they had for IPA chi = uvular
voiceless. They morover claimed that Dutch /x/ was front velar after back
vowels and back palatal after front ones.

                                           Andreas

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx