minimal pairs (was: PIE e/o Ablaut)

[Stanley Friesen]

At 09:00 PM 3/30/00 +0300, Robert Whiting wrote:

>Most people would not insist on phonemic status for both [th] and [dh] in
>English on the basis of this minimal pair (although some would doubtless
>claim that there has been a phomemic split similar to what occurred with
>/s/ and /z/).  This is because otherwise the sounds are in complementary
>distribution, [dh] occuring in voiced environments and in deictic words
>and pronouns, [th] otherwise.

Personally, I have trouble with this analysis.  "Deictic words and
pronouns" is NOT what I would call a phonetic condition, so I would rule it
out as a possible rule for governing allophones.

One approach one can take in living languages is to check the speaker's
awareness of the distinction.  Often an untrained speaker is unaware of
true allophonic distinctions.  For instance, the aspiration/non-aspiration
of voiceless stops in English is not generally even noticed by most
speakers.  It usually has to be demonstrated to them before they can
recognize it.

On the other hand, most English speakers I know of seem to be quite aware
of the /th/ vs. /dh/ distinction.

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com