Re: YEAPT: f/T (was Re: Other Vulgar Latins?)
| From: | Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 1:03 |
|---|
On 2/21/06, Paul Bennett <paul-bennett@...> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:43:24 -0500, Keith Gaughan <kmgaughan@...>
> wrote:
>
> >> half hearth
> >
> > I don't know any dialect of English where these two are a minimal pair,
> > rhotic or non-rhotic.
>
> I have /hAf/ ~ /hAT/. In non-careful enough speech, I can have /A:f/ for
> both of them.
Even if I spoke non-rhotically, that would make it /h&f/-/hAT/.
> >> infuse enthuse
> >
> > Ditto. [I] vs. [E].
>
> I have, and quite often hear initial /I/ in both cases. Indeed, it's a
> fairly general case IME that a lot of |in-| and |en-| words are found with
> initial /In/. See also the frequent need to remind people of the
> difference between |ensure| and |insure|.
Yup. I have a very lax, almost schwalike, [I] for both of those -
except in careful speech, when "enthuse" gets a clear [E].
> >> sheaf sheath
> >
> > [f] vs. [D]. A minimal pair, but now [T] -> [f].
IMD the noun "sheath" has a [T]. The verb "sheathe" has a [D]. I
thought that was universal, or as universal as anything is in English
dialectology.
--
Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>
Replies