Re: USAGE: English eth

From: "John Cowan"

> The list of eths in English seems to be tolerably short.
> Finally: bathe, bequeath, betroth, blithe, breathe, clothe, lathe,
> lithe, loathe, scythe, seethe, smooth, soothe, teethe, tithe, withe,
> wreathe, writhe and their inflected and derived forms.  The verb "mouth"
> (not the noun "mouth") also belongs to this category.
As I was following this thread, I was thinking that here was a place where
minimal pairs might occur:

sooth/soothe
wreath/wreathe
loath/loathe
mouth/mouth
etc.

but ruminating further...since the second of these pairs is a verb, there is
(in my idiolect, at least) a "holding" of the vowel, so:

sooth /suT/ vs. soothe /su:D/
wreath /riT/ vs. wreathe /ri:D/
loath /loT/ vs. loathe/lo:D/
mouth /maUT/ vs. mouth /maU:D/
etc.

(bath /b&T/, bathe /be:D/ aren't in the mix for me)

so, do these really count as minimal pairs, then? It feels to me akin to the
difference between (perhaps I'm more a K-baum than SAMPA guy? so)

peu /pY/ vs. peur /pY:R/
eux /Y/ vs. heure /Y:R/
jeu /ZY/ vs. jeune /ZY:n/
etc.
(Christophe used /2/ and /9/ respectively)

Perhaps Christophe has a point. Natives perceive the difference even if
there aren't minimal pair contrasts (and this ain't the "heng" thang, is
it?).

And here I was, silly me, going to posit "this'll" /DIsl/ vs. "thistle"
/TIsl/, when there are so many better examples floating around. I especially
like Adam's ether/either (/iTr/, /iDr/) example, which for my idiolect is
right on point (you say /aIDr/, let's call the whole thing off -- yes, I
recognize it, I don't produce it, even as free variation).

Kou

Reply