Re: Pinyin question
- From: "Dylan Sung" <dylanwhs.tsktsktsk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:09:22 +0100
"Lee Sau Dan" <danlee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:873bpzeo86.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Fangnail <richardfangnail@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> Richard> Why did they insist on having a distinction between X/Sh?
> Richard> The only difference is the placement of the tongue tip;
>
> Why do you insist on having a distinction between "t" (as in "tick")
> and "th" (as in "thick") in English? The only difference is the
> placement of the tongue tip.
>
>
> Richard> to the speakers of most languages, there is no difference
> Richard> in the sound.
>
> The same goes for "t" vs. "th" in English. Few other languages make
> that distinction.
>
>
> Richard> They are also in complementary distribution.
>
> Really? <shi1> and <xi1> are different words.
I think Richard means the set <z c s> and <j q x> as being complementary,
rather than the retroflex set <zh ch sh>.
Dyl.
.
- References:
- Pinyin question
- From: Richard Fangnail
- Re: Pinyin question
- From: Lee Sau Dan
- Pinyin question
- Prev by Date: Re: WuBi, Hanzi, Unihan, study, Chinese
- Next by Date: Re: WuBi, Hanzi, Unihan, study, Chinese
- Previous by thread: Re: Pinyin question
- Next by thread: Re: Pinyin question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|