Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: Other Vulgar Latins?

From:Keith Gaughan <kmgaughan@...>
Date:Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 0:37
Philip Newton wrote:

> On 2/21/06, David J. Peterson <dedalvs@...> wrote: >> there probably aren't that many minimal >> pairs with [f] and [T] > > lists: > > 50 pairs making 38 semantic contrasts
If somebody's interested in a neighbouring dialect that differs in some places, here's some transcriptions and comments. /T/ can be read as [T] or [t_d]:
> firm therm
/frm/ (syllabic 'r') /TErm/
> feoff thief
> ford thawed
/fOrd/ /TA:d/
> faun thorn
/fA:n/ /TOrn/
> forts thoughts
/fOrts/ /TA:ts/ or /t_dA:ts/
> fours thaws get the idea...
> half hearth
I don't know any dialect of English where these two are a minimal pair, rhotic or non-rhotic.
> infuse enthuse
Ditto. [I] vs. [E].
> sheaf sheath
[f] vs. [D]. A minimal pair, but now [T] -> [f]. K.


Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...>YEAPT: f/T (was Re: Other Vulgar Latins?)
Adam Walker <carrajena@...>
Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...>