minimal pairs are not always there

[proto-language]

Dear John and IEists:

  ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dr. John E. McLaughlin
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2000 4:05 AM

  <snip>

> Phonemically, both teeth and teethe have /i:/ (or /i/ if you prefer
> distinguishing between /i/ and /I/ rather than using length as the
> distinguishing feature), but phonetically, the /i:/ of 'teeth' is not as
> long as the /i:/ in 'teethe'.  There's no debate about this among
> phoneticians.

  [PR]

This may well be true but I have a question in connection with it.

When I pronounce a word like /tith/, the primary difference between it and
/tidh/ seems to me to be that the voicing of the /dh/ requires a voiced onset;
even more sensibly when stops are involved: /bat/ vs. /ba(uh)d/.

This is particularly clear when an initial voiced stop is compared with a
voiceless stop: /(uh)damp/ vs. /tamp/.

So, I am wondering if /tidh/ may not have about the same length /i/ as /tith/
but with the onset somehow being reckoned as part of the 'length' in /ti(u)dh/?

  Pat

  PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE at email.msn.com
  (501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA
  WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/
  and PROTO-RELIGION:
  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html

  "Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío,
  geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit,
  hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)