Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT: Phonemic status of English interdentals

From:Tristan <kesuari@...>
Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2002, 21:30
Nik Taylor wrote:

>Tristan wrote: > > >>I'm a firm believer in the non-distinction of [T] and [D] in English. It >>took me *aages* to work out what the difference was at first. >> >> >Perhaps it depends on dialect, or perhaps I'm more sensitive to it, but >I've been aware of the difference as long as I can remember. To me, >it's much more distinct than, say, /I/ and /@/ are in unstressed >syllables. >
May well be the case. Did you find it odd that we used the same letters (<th>) for them both?
>>Minimal pairs do not a phoneme make. Nor does a lack thereof make not. >> >> >Then in that case, just what *is* a phoneme? [T] and [D] are not >interchangeable, nor in complementary distribution, and they are all >that distinguish some word-pairs (not very many, granted, and the list >depends on dialect). If that doesn't make a phoneme then what does? >
I don't know... But I had no awareness at all of a distinction between [T] and [D], nor did a number of other people I've asked (all from Australia, too). I imagine phonemes are theoretical constructs that don't necessarily exist as well in practice ;)
>>(And... what is the origin of the constructions 'X do/es not a Y make'?) >> >> >Presumably an old proverb, the exact form of which I can't remember, but >something like "A sparrow does not a spring make", which preserved the >older word order. >
Yes; Joh'n since posted a poem answering my question. Thanks anyway though ;) Tristan
> >

Replies

Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...>
Muke Tever <mktvr@...>