I apologise if this gets kind of jargon-ful, but my questions are kind of specific, and this is a language forum, after all.

Okay, some questions about Esperanto:

Aspiration? Doctor Zamenhof, being an occulist rather than a linguist, probably didn't think about it much, but it's kind of important. So are the stops in Esperanto supposed to be aspirated or unaspirated? Or doesn't it matter? Are both okay but one more stigmatised?

The Esperanto 'r', as I've heard, is able to be pronounced as either a flap or a trill. Is this correct? Can it be pronounced either way anywhere or is there some kind of rule that it goes by?

The h-chapelo (a.k.a. hx, hh, &c): is it a velar or palatal fricative?

To what extend is assimilation allowed? I'm especially worried about before 'r's, as I've noticed myself when speaking Esperanto laxening my "er"s in American style.

Again, I realise these are kinda specific, but any help would be appreciated.

~~~~~
On an unrelated note, I'm trying to express indirect causality, like in the English sentence: "The president had the man killed." My best guess is La prezidento igis, ke oni mortigu la viron. Anyone?

Cyril957: Aspiration? Doctor Zamenhof, being an occulist rather than a linguist, probably didn't think about it much, but it's kind of important. So are the stops in Esperanto supposed to be aspirated or unaspirated?

There's some information about this in La Detala Gramatiko:

Detala Gramatiko:En kelkaj lingvoj oni elparolas la sonojn P, T, K, C kaj Ĉ kun aspiracio, kvazaŭ kun malforta H poste. En Esperanto tiuj konsonantoj estas normale sen aspiracio, sed pri tio ne ekzistas regulo. Oni povas do elparoli aspiracie, se oni volas, sed oni atentu, ke la aspiracio ne sonu kiel plena H.

Trans:
In some languages the sounds of P, T, K, C and Ĉ are pronounced with aspiration (the articulation is accompanied by an audible puff of breath, like an H). In Esperanto those consonants are normally pronounced without aspiration, but there is no rule concerning this. It is therefore acceptable to pronouce them with aspiration should you wish to, but you should make sure not to make a full H sound.

Cyril957:The Esperanto 'r', as I've heard, is able to be pronounced as either a flap or a trill. Is this correct? Can it be pronounced either way anywhere or is there some kind of rule that it goes by?

No rule, trill or tap is fine. The velar R (where the uvular vibrates against the tounge) is also okay.

Cyril957:The h-chapelo (a.k.a. hx, hh, &c): is it a velar or palatal fricative?

It is the voiceless velar fricative (IPA symbol x)

Cyril957:On an unrelated note, I'm trying to express indirect causality, like in the English sentence: "The president had the man killed." My best guess is La prezidento igis, ke oni mortigu la viron. Anyone?

Your sentence is okay but a better way to say it might be La prezidento murdigis la viron. When using "ig" in a transitive verb like "murdi", the meaning can be "igi murdi" or "igi esti murdita". Context will show which one is meant, and in my phrase it's the latter meaning.

Argh, I wanted to answer but tommjames did it before me.

Assimilation should be avoided, but I think it's not very important if it doesn't make the words difficult to understand. For example, the word banko is probably pronounced by many people with a velar n, but it's not a problem. And some people say [apsoluta] for absoluta or [egzemplo] for ekzemplo, but there's no risk of confusion with other words.

Edit: there's information about this in PMEG.

Kiam senvoĉa konsonanto staras tuj antaŭ voĉa konsonanto, multaj emas voĉigi ĝin: akvo → “agvo”, okdek → “ogdek”. Kaj inverse, kiam voĉa konsonanto staras antaŭ senvoĉa, multaj emas senvoĉigi ĝin: subtaso → “suptaso”, absolute → “apsolute”. Tiaj ŝanĝoj principe neniam estas korektaj, sed estas ofte tolerataj en la praktiko, se ili ne kaŭzas miskomprenojn. Aparte malfacila estas la sinsekvo KZ, kiu ofte elparoliĝas kiel GZ: ekzemple → “egzemple”. Tio estas nekorekta, sed praktike akceptata.

When a voiceless consonant is just before a voiced consonant, many people tend to voice it: akvo → “agvo”, okdek → “ogdek”. Conversely, when a voiced consonant is before a voiceless one, many people tend to devoice it: subtaso → “suptaso”, absolute → “apsolute”. These changes are in theory never correct, but they are often tolerated in practical purposes, if they don't cause misunderstanding. The cluster KZ is especially difficult and is often prounouced as GZ: ekzemple → “egzemple”. This is incorrect, but practically accepted.

Where in the PMEG is that found? I have a copy sitting at home on my shelf, but it didn't cross my mind when the questions formed themselves (I'm at university right now).

Also, with adding a -ig- to an already transitive verb, wouldn't that require two objects? Because if "I kill him" but "I make you kill him" in English, why in Esperanto do you only need the one?

Also, with adding a -ig- to an already transitive verb, wouldn't that require two objects?

Bear in mind that a transitive verb never requires an object, but rather is capable of having one.

However you're correct that using -ig can introduce another object into the equation. In those cases there would be an indirect object via the preposition "al". An example from the Fundamenta Krestomatio: ..kiu rememorigis al la malfeliĉa virino la pasintan feliĉan tempon. (which reminded the unhappy woman of the past happy times). You don't always have to show the indirect object though, for example "mi vidigis la libron" makes perfect sense without one. Note that "vidigi" here means to show (igi vidita) rather than make see (igi vidi).

Where in the PMEG is that found?

Page 25 in my paper copy, which is version 14.0.

Regarding Cyril's example, "I make you kill him", how would that work?

Mi igas ke vi mortig(a/o)s lin/Mi igas vin mortigi lin? As "kill" is already an -ig- verb, and "Mi mortigigas vin al li" seems like the most confusing route possible.

Hopefully though no one would ever have to say that, but if anyone here is a budding megalomaniac with a penchant for monologuing to their victims, it could be useful to them.

ceigered:Mi igas vin mortigi lin

... is what I'd say.

ceigered:and "Mi mortigigas vin al li" seems like the most confusing route possible.

Indeed, which as you may have guessed is why I avoided the whole issue by using murdi

I too would go with "Mi igas vin mortigi lin".

La president had the man killed.

La prezidento aranĝigis la morton/murdon de tiu homo.

La prezidento asasinigis la homon.

Asasin/o/i isn't in PIV, but CorpusEye finds plenty of instances.

tommjames:

ceigered:and "Mi mortigigas vin al li" seems like the most confusing route possible.

Indeed, which as you may have guessed is why I avoided the whole issue by using murdi

I too would go with "Mi igas vin mortigi lin".

I had not seen murdi, my apologies .