minimal pairs (was: PIE e/o Ablaut)

[Ross Clark]

>>> Robert Whiting <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi> 04/04 6:42 AM >>>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:17:46 -0800
From: Stanley Friesen <sarima at friesen.net>

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.

I am astonished that this discussion has proceeded for several days without
anyone questioning the original statement about complementary distribution of
[th] and [dh] in modern English, which is simply incorrect. Even if one does
not have the pronunciation which makes "either" and "ether" a minimal pair,
examples of [th] in voiced environments are not at all hard to find:
pathology, authority, anathema, mathematics, Gothic, Arthur, etc etc. [dh]
occurs in word-final position in breathe, bathe, writhe, etc  That these two
consonants have undergone a split parallel to that of /s/-/z/ and /f/-/v/ in
the history of English is hardly controversial view  ("some would doubtless
claim") -- I would be most interested to hear of any description of modern
English (save perhaps from the Baroque Period of SPE abstractionism) in which
this is not taken as a simple fact.

Ross Clark