Re: CHAT: Phonemic status of English interdentals

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. Much
easier to tell the difference between [&] and [&:] (which only have one
debatable minimal pair---can and can) or [8u] and [Ou] (which has no
minimal pairs).

Minimal pairs do not a phoneme make. Nor does a lack thereof make not.
(And... what is the origin of the constructions 'X do/es not a Y make'?)

Tristan

Josh Brandt-Young wrote:

>Peshik,
>
>I was thinking about our discussion some time ago of whether [T] and [D]
>should be considered separate phonemes in English, citing "minimal pairs"
>and whatnot, and decided to do a test on my (non-linguistically-savvy)
>girlfriend to see what I could see.
>
>I read the following text, changing all occurrences of [T] to [D]:
>
>It was a balmy summer night. The fat man and the thin man were taking a walk
>through the park, when they suddenly became aware that a large moth was
>fluttering around them. The fat man stumbled off the path, shouting "I think
>that thing just bit me!" The thin man furrowed his brow, and replied, "I
>doubt it--moths have no teeth."
>
>I read it very quickly the first time, and as she noticed nothing
>remarkable, I read it again more slowly with fairly strong enunciation on
>the interdentals--still nothing. Even when I read the test words
>*individually* she had no idea what I was looking for.
>
>This seems to prove (at least in her dialect) that they're not separately
>phonemic--what do you think?
>
>
>Ána vien,
>   Josh
>
>----------
>Josh Brandt-Young <vionau@...>
>"After the tempest I behold, once more, the weasel."
>(Mispronunciation of Ancient Greek)
>
>
>

Replies