Re: CHAT: Phonemic status of English interdentals
| From: | Nik Taylor <yonjuuni@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Tuesday, October 8, 2002, 20:47 |
|---|
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.
> 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?
> (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.
--
"There's no such thing as 'cool'. Everyone's just a big dork or nerd,
you just have to find people who are dorky the same way you are." -
overheard
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42
Replies