On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:41 AM, BPJ <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 2013-06-27 15:14, George Corley skrev: > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:04 AM, BPJ <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> >>> >>> And I'd definitely use <q> (Maltese!) or even <'> for /ʔ/ >>> since there likely is a /h/ in the lang if it has aspirates. >>> >>> >> Is that true. I'm just curious, since for many Mandarin dialects, pinyin >> <h> is /x/ and there is no /h/ (there are dialects with /h/, though). >> >> > I did say "likely", not "doubtless"! There *are* languages > which have aspirated stops/affricates but no /h/ -- Lhasa > Tibetan is another one, which BTW also has /x/, and I don't > know to what extent /ɦ/ in New IndoAryan languages comes out > as [h], but I have seen many times stated that the vast majority > of languages with aspirates have /h/. Even so if Teoh's lang has > /x/ or /ɦ/ <h> would be a good choice for it, no? > I was only citing a language I'm familiar with. Of course it doesn't disprove you, we could come up with lots of single language examples, but we'd need at least several hundred with sampling controls for language family and geographic location to be conclusive. It would make sense for /h/ to be more likely with aspirated consonants. Surely someone out there has done a study of this.