Return of the minimal pairs (when is a morpheme not a morpheme?)

[proto-language]

Dear Bob and IEists:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Whiting" <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:15 AM

> On Mon, 21 May 2001, Larry Trask wrote:

>> --On Thursday, May 17, 2001 2:17 pm +0300 Robert Whiting
>> <whiting at cc.helsinki.fi> wrote:

>>> I'm perfectly happy to accept 'thy' as a ModE word.  But
>>> 'thigh' and 'thy' are as perfect a minimal pair as German
>>> 'Kuhchen' and 'Kuchen' or 'Tauchen' and Kuchen'.

<snip>

[PCR]
A very impressive argument, one ro which I subscribe, and not the least
impaired by the following small inaccuracy.

> Otherwise, <dh> usually represent the phryngeal [d.] (sometimes referred to
> as "emphatic") in Arabic transcription, as in the place name 'Riyadh'.

[PCR]
In my experience, /dh/ (dha:l) is never used to represent Arabic emphatic /d./
(d.a:d). They are two separate sounds and letters. Riyadh has dha:l.

<snip>

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)