Re: YAEPT: Enuf is Enuf: Some Peepl Thru with Dificult Spelingz

On 7/12/06, Tristan Alexander McLeay <conlang@...> wrote:
> Probably you're right! :) (That distinction is definitely one I would
> maintain; it's more analogous to /t/ vs /d/ than /S/ vs /Z/. But I
> think /Z/ is better unified with /z(j)/ than /S/, with which it
> alternates: /pr@Zu\:m/ vs /pr@zamS@n/, and I can't think of any
> minimal pairs.)
The ever-trusty list of "Minimal Pairs for English RP" offers, among
others, Caesar-seizure and baize-beige. But there are rather few, and
some of them involve foreign proper nouns.

The /S/-/Z/ distinction has even fewer minimal pairs -- only three if
ones involving proper nouns are discounted.

But as Mark said, the [Z] is not necessarily /Z/. (As for me, I have
[zj] there -- but [Z] in "seizure"; [si:zj@] sounds to me like "'s
easier".)

Cheers,
--
Philip Newton <philip.newton@...>