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

[Robert Whiting]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, proto-language wrote:

<snip>

>>> --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.

No, Riyadh had d.a:d.  Look it up in your Wehr (the root is RWD., not RYD.
as one might expect).  The symbol "<dh>" identifies a written sequence,
not a phonetic one and I was fairly specific about indicating that is is
an English graphic sequence.  The point is that English <dh> is not used
to indicate Arabic dha:l except in the month names beginning with <Dhu>
and in <dhal> which is the name of the letter used to write the sound.
Otherwise, English <dh> in transcriptions frequently represents Arabic
[d.] the phryngeal ("emphatic") d, while Arabic [D] is usually represented
by <d> (e.g. dahabeeyah, from the root Dhb "to go back and forth."

<snip>

Bob Whiting
whiting at cc.helsinki.fi