Only because his Thuringer grandfather changed it when he moved to Frankfurt. I’d guess it was a regional thing, or he predicted 20th century spelling reforms.
No, not really. In most South Asian languages, DH and D, GH and G, etc. represent entirely different sounds and are considered entirely different phonemes. The first is aspirated (has a puff of air after it), and the second isn’t.
South Asian ‘D’ can be either dental or retroflex, neither of which quite corresponds to the Anglo-American ‘D’, so that’s an added complication. Some languages in the south of the continent, like Tamil, don’t distinguish between aspirated and non-aspirated consonants in ‘native’ words, but they still have Sanskrit-based loanwords and names which do, especially in higher-class speech.
In languages like Russian, ‘KH’ represents yet another sound, which is closer (not identical to) an English “H”, or a “J” in Argentinian Spanish.
When I say the word “Czech,” the sound at the end comes out pretty close to the South Asian aspirated k (as opposed to when I say “check”), but I don’t know if most native English speakers pronounce “Czech” this way.
It isn’t, you just don’t ‘hear’ the difference. Or rather you hear it, but don’t notice it, because English doesn’t differentiate those two sounds.
Likewise, my dialect of American English differentiates “Mary”, “Merry” and “Marry”, but doesn’t distinguish the vowels in “Dawn” and “Don”. For someone from the American South, its the reverse, and those first three sound identical to them.
IIRC, voiced and aspirated phonemes /bh/, /dh/, /gh/ are present in Sanskrit(?) but otherwise rarish.
Thai has /b/, /p/, and /ph/ but no /bh/. However, presumably as a vestige of borrowings from a Hindic language, one of the three consonants with a /ph/ sound may be transcribed as /bh/ in certain words – e.g. Bhumibol, the personal name of the present Monarch.
Similarly, there are two consonants which sound /d/, two /t/ and six(!) /th/, with one or two of the /th/ consonants rarely transcribed as /dh/, e.g. in the name of the ancient capital Ayuddhaya.
I can tell the OP that in transliteration from Thai, “kh” indicates a hard K sound, whereas “k” alone is more of a G sound. Thus, the northeastern province with the standard spelling of Khon Kaen is pronounced “kawn gan,” the “a” in the second word the same “a” as in “hand.”
Similarly, the “h” after a P indicates a hard “p” sound.
for what it is worth, while I do pronounce Gandhi like the h was silent, it isn’t silent in Khan or Afghanistan.
Sometimes if I am being lazy I will say “af-gan-istan”, but usually it comes out more like “afg-han-istan”.
So I guess the short answer is that is isn’t supposed to be silent, and if you can’t hear how it is changing the pronunciation, you are probably pronouncing that wrong.
ETA: For me, the “h” is silent if you remove the “-istan”.
That is, Afghan hounds and afghan sweaters and afghan rugs, all those I pronounce “af-gan”. Which I probably shouldn’t.
I suspect this is because I learned those words when I was about 6 (a friend had an Afghan hound), well before I had heard of Afghanistan as a place.
Really, terms like “hard” and “soft” consonants and “long” and “short” vowels ultimately interfere with fighting ignorance. Better to get folks used to “voiced,” “unvoiced,” “aspirated,” and “unaspirated.”
“Khon Kaen” (/kʰɔ̌n kɛ̀n/) may sound more like “Corn gen” where “gen” rhymes with “Ken.” The /k/ is nominally unvoiced and, depending on Thai speaker may sound like either /k/ or /g/ to Western listener.
What Sam describes as “hard p” is more conventionally called aspirated /p/ (i.e. /pʰ/), while what he calls “hard g” is the unaspirated /k/.
Depends on what you mean by “rare,” I suppose. They are present in Hindi-Urdu and Bengali, which represents a hefty chunk of the world’s population.
Do any of the languages in question have implosives or ejectives?
Really? I just did the test for a variety of sounds, and I can feel at least some air coming through for nearly everything, including plain vowels and liquids (though not ‘n’ and ‘m’). “W” has more breath than “g”, or “d” but nothing like the explosion of air on a “wh”
I see on linguistics sites that ‘aspirated w’ is written /hw/ … that seems to be different from what I’m talking about too. That is, I can imagine someone saying “where” with the ‘h’ sound coming before the w, but in that case it’s coming from the middle to the back of the mouth, as a distinct sound (and sounds in my minds ear like an upper class English person, rather than a Scot). ‘My’ “wh” is all at the front of the mouth, and you could blow out a candle with it.
Very skeptical on this one. I can’t hear or feel any difference between the two 't’s (though the air coming through on the ‘p’ is strongest of all)
Is that the thing referred to in this link?. Because I can make myself do that if I slow down and Americanise my ‘o’, and start turning the t into something that’s on the way to a “ch” … but in any case, this is all just solidifying in my experience that I sure do feel a hell of a lot more air than any other consonant when I pronounce a “wh” as I have heard it done.
Aspidistra, if you don’t believe us, there are other ways you can check for the presence or absence of aspiration. A relatively high-tech way is to produce a spectrogram using freely available software such as Praat. You can use Praat to record yourself saying words, such as “stop” and “top”, and then to produce and analyze a visual representation of the sound frequencies. With a little practice you should be able to differentiate aspirated from unaspirated consonants. (You can even use this handy guide from Will Styler to get a head-start on what to look for.)
I suppose it is within the realm of possibility that you aspirate the /t/ in a syllable onset even if it’s preceded by /s/, though if you are a native English speaker of a fairly standard dialect, this would be extremely unusual.
I think in ‘stop/top’ what I’m saying is that I *don’t * aspirate ‘top’, as far as I can tell.
I did download Praat, but having messed about with it for a couple of minutes I think it would take me some time to figure out what it’s telling me…
…but if anyone’s interested, this is me saying ‘what’ (ie, ‘wot’) four times, then differentiating it to what I would have called the aspirated version another four times.
I’m afraid those diagrams aren’t speech spectrograms, so we won’t be able to get any useful information out of them. You need to tell Praat (or whatever software you’re using) to produce something that looks like this. Also, each spectrogram should correspond to a single word; if you say eight words then it will be too horizontally compressed to read.
When using Praat or other software to analyze speech sounds, be sure to make your utterance part of a sentence, said three times. There are a few good reasons for this, chief among them that you’re looking to analyze something as it’s said naturally, not rehearsed or uttered as part of a list.
Marathi is also in the top 20 world languages. As are Tamil and Telugu, which I would imagine might not have aspirated consonants in native words, but certainly do in loan words.
They aren’t silent.
The h in Khan is there to modify the k into a sound that’s nonexistent in English, the equivalent of which in German is written with a Ch. So, what Arabs and Urdu speakers use the Kh combination for, the Germans use the Ch combination for. This video is where you can hear it pronounced: learn arabic letter خ kh - YouTube
Same goes for Afghanistan. The h after the g is there to modify the sound from the normal g to something close to how the French and German pronounce their r.
Not sure about Gandhi.