I had the same problem. Kirilo81 helped me then (thank you ). The same problem had I also with the flap t learning English. One said "It's just a normal t between two vowels". It wasn't so helpful, y'know. But there were lots of tutorial movies on YouTube, which made my flap t working. And I've realized that the best part of learning is not knowledge. It's just that satisfaction, when you've done something that was unbelievable before. Just keep practicing everyday.
Sorry for my English. I'm still working on it

Tsahraf:I was wondering just recently whether hxo was uvular or velar.

When we look at the Fundamento we find various definitions of ĥ:
- The French grammar defines it as "a strongly aspirated h", hence glottal (although I have no idea what /hʰ/ or /h̤/ is supposed to mean).
- The English grammar defines is as Scottish , hence /x/, i.e. velar.
- The German grammar defines is as , hence either /x/, /ç/ or /χ/, i.e. velar, palatal or uvular.
- The Russian grammar defines it as , hence /x/, /xʲ/ or /ɣ/, i.e. velar.
- Same for Polish.

So I daresay that any fricative from palatal to glottal should be acceptable. Maybe you should exclude the glottal fricative in order to maintain the difference between and <ĥ>.

nornen:

Tsahraf:I was wondering just recently whether hxo was uvular or velar.

When we look at the Fundamento we find various definitions of ĥ:
- The French grammar defines it as "a strongly aspirated h", hence glottal (although I have no idea what /hʰ/ or /h̤/ is supposed to mean).
- The English grammar defines is as Scottish , hence /x/, i.e. velar.
- The German grammar defines is as , hence either /x/, /ç/ or /χ/, i.e. velar, palatal or uvular.
- The Russian grammar defines it as , hence /x/, /xʲ/ or /ɣ/, i.e. velar.
- Same for Polish.

So I daresay that any fricative from palatal to glottal should be acceptable. Maybe you should exclude the glottal fricative in order to maintain the difference between and <ĥ>.

The /hʰ/ is the aspirated /h/. /ç/ sounds more like ŝ though.

EratoNysiad:/ç/ sounds more like ŝ though.

Surely more like 's' rather than ŝ.

EratoNysiad:

nornen:

Tsahraf:I was wondering just recently whether hxo was uvular or velar.

When we look at the Fundamento we find various definitions of ĥ:
- The French grammar defines it as "a strongly aspirated h", hence glottal (although I have no idea what /hʰ/ or /h̤/ is supposed to mean).
- The English grammar defines is as Scottish , hence /x/, i.e. velar.
- The German grammar defines is as , hence either /x/, /ç/ or /χ/, i.e. velar, palatal or uvular.
- The Russian grammar defines it as , hence /x/, /xʲ/ or /ɣ/, i.e. velar.
- Same for Polish.

So I daresay that any fricative from palatal to glottal should be acceptable. Maybe you should exclude the glottal fricative in order to maintain the difference between and <ĥ>.

The /hʰ/ is the aspirated /h/. /ç/ sounds more like ŝ though.

You can find /ç/ for instance in the German word "ich".
In German there are minimal pairs between /ç/ and /ʃ/: Wicht - wischt. Eo: vijt - viŝt. IPA: [vɪçt - vɪʃt]

Vestitor:Surely more like 's' rather than ŝ.

There are also minimal pairs between /ç/ and /s/: Recht - Rest. Eo: rejt - rest. IPA: [r̺ɛçt - r̺ɛst]

In general, /ç/ is dorsal, while /s/ and /ʃ/ are coronal.
/s/ and /ʃ/ are sibilants, while /ç/ isn't.
At least to my ears /ç/ doesn't sound anything like /s/ or /ʃ/. It is quite close to /x/ and /χ/ though.

Oh, I thought the reference was to ç as it appears in French, not IPA notation.

Vestitor:Oh, I thought the reference was to ç as it appears in French, not IPA notation.

I generally write graphemes between square brackets, phonemes between slashes and realisations between square brackets. I think this quite standard, too.
<ŭ> /u/ [u̯]

Note that Fundamento relates to 1887. Since that time in the national languages was some changes, the most remarkable is Russian writing. Fundamento is not changable and Russian translates rests in old writing. Explanations of pronuncation of sounds also relates to 1887.