minimal pairs are not always there

[Dr. John E. McLaughlin]

[I wrote]

>> 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/?

Take it up with the phoneticians.  They all agree that English vowels
are measurably longer in front of voiced sounds than in front of
voiceless ones.  It's not the onset they're measuring.

John McLaughlin