WereVrock:/x/ sound is the same as Esperanto "ĥ" right?

Yes. The International Phonetic Alphabet uses [x] to represent this sound. Arguably, the sound the IPA represents with [ç] is also covered by Esperanto's "ĥ".

Breto:

WereVrock:/x/ sound is the same as Esperanto "ĥ" right?

Yes. The International Phonetic Alphabet uses [x] to represent this sound. Arguably, the sound the IPA represents with [ç] is also covered by Esperanto's "ĥ".

German /ç/ sound is not a correct pronunciation of Esperanto „ĥ”. German translation of the „Fundamento” may indeed suggest that both these sounds are acceptable, however in all other four versions it's cleat that only /x/ is the one we're talking about.

Breto:And while English doesn't seem to have an ach-laut at all (that I've noticed), we certainly have ich-laut. We just interpret it as /hy/ instead.

Apparently, not /hy/, because one normally transcribes it phonetically as /hjuː/, which may indeed be pronounced precisely as [çju̟ː]. But it's not really an existing phoneme in English, rather than just an existing allophone in words like you've mentioned. But if you're looking for a better analogy of German /x/ vs /ç/, then check out Scouse accent, where normal English /k/ phoneme is realised as [x] or [ç] depending (as in German) on the preceding vowel (book is [bʉːx], like is [laɪ̯ç]).

mbalicki:German /ç/ sound is not a correct pronunciation of Esperanto „ĥ”. German translation of the „Fundamento” may indeed suggest that both these sounds are acceptable, however in all other four versions it's cleat that only /x/ is the one we're talking about.

Ah, my apologies. Most of my early Esperanto learning comes from older books with much more variable pronunciation guides.

mbalicki:Apparently, not /hy/, because one normally transcribes it phonetically as /hjuː/, which may indeed be pronounced precisely as [çju̟ː]. But it's not really an existing phoneme in English, rather than just an existing allophone in words like you've mentioned. But if you're looking for a better analogy of German /x/ vs /ç/, then check out Scouse accent, where normal English /k/ phoneme is realised as [x] or [ç] depending (as in German) on the preceding vowel (book is [bʉːx], like is [laɪ̯ç]).

That's exactly what I was getting at, though. One language's allophone is another's phoneme. Any given language has many more sounds than its speakers typically recognize, because in learning the language they've been conditioned to hear only the "important" sounds. As difficult as a completely new sound can be, it can be even harder to learn to hear the difference between two sounds you've always considered the same phoneme.

WereVrock:I was watching evildea, a videoblogger on youtube. He is pronouncing "scias" as if there is no "c" there.

Hi WereVrook. I'm the Evildea you're talking about. When speaking the SC combinations you should speak it clearly enough so the S and the C can be heard even though merged into one sound. However, a habit myself and many others share is that when we speak the these words fast they merge a little too much. If you watch my other videos, particularly the one on the verb "Sci/i" you'll notice how I pronounce both sounds clearly ... most of the time. The problem lays in the fact that "sci/i" isn't conductive to fast speech. I will, however, try to keep them more clear in the future. Sorry to cause any confusion.

By the way, why doesn't Esperanto mark the sound occurring between 'ii' in that word?

Tangi:By the way, why doesn't Esperanto mark the sound occurring between 'ii' in that word?

I suppose you're asking about the glottal stop (glota halto, /ʔ/) when pronouncing scii as ['st͡si.ʔi], yes?

Why we write only scii, then? Because our alphabet marks only phonemes which exist in the language and not the precise phones one may or may not use when realising them. Many languages do not have the glottal stop as a distinct phoneme and yet it may very well be, that it's extensively used by the speakers; most of the time as its adding in front of the vowel is allowed in word-initial or postvocalic positions. Same is true in Esperanto, where you can pronounce /'st͡si.i/ as ['st͡si.ʔi] or as ['st͡si.i], or as ['st͡si.ji], or as ['st͡sʰi.i], or as ['st͡sʰi.ʔi], or as ['st͡sɪ.ʔi], or as ['s̪t̻͡s̪i.i], or as ['s̪t̻͡s̪ʰi.ji] &c., &c.

And yet, the required phonemes are only /'st͡si.i/, therefore the orthography presents it only as scii.

So far this is the smoothest pronunciation of the "sc" in "sciis" that I've heard, and the one I try to emulate:

Song: "Esperanto" by Tutmonda Muziko

The word is somewhere between 0:40 and 0:50

Hi WereVrook. I'm the Evildea you're talking about. When speaking the SC combinations you should speak it clearly enough so the S and the C can be heard even though merged into one sound. However, a habit myself and many others share is that when we speak the these words fast they merge a little too much. If you watch my other videos, particularly the one on the verb "Sci/i" you'll notice how I pronounce both sounds clearly ... most of the time. The problem lays in the fact that "sci/i" isn't conductive to fast speech. I will, however, try to keep them more clear in the future. Sorry to cause any confusion.

Thanks for clarification.

edit: I've fixed the formatting.