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
>
>