Christophe Grandsire a écrit: >>> En réponse à John Cowan <[log in to unmask]>: > No and no; "clothes" is idiosyncratically pronounced /klowz/, although > some people use a spelling pronunciation /klowDz/. In eye-dialect, > it is written "clo'es". Well, that's strange. We've had quite a few different assistants during my years of learning English, besides French teachers who were often considered completely bilingual. I remember four assistants especially, two from the United States, one from Britain and the other from Ireland. Well, one thing is sure, they *all* used [D] in "clothes", without exception (that was a very often used word, since I was often nearly the only one around who could master [T] and [D], and it was often used as example. That's why I know very well that they pronounced it with [D]). Would have we been unlucky enough to have only hypercorrectors as assistants, especially from so many different places? i somehow doubt so. <<< Well, AFM accent (British: near-RP wth a hint of Midland)... My immediate reaction to this was 'surely everyone says [Dz]?', and a little experimentation shows this to be true for all but my fastest speech (I use [kl@uDz]). Using a mirror, I can see the tip of my tongue flick through the interdental region even in fast connected speech when I can't distinguish it auditorily from [kl@uz]. Interestingly, though, the voicing, which starts at some point during the [l], stops early in the [D] and is entirely absent from the [z]. This happens even in my slow, isolated, 'citation-form' pronunciation of the word, and wasn't something I was expecting at all. It also happens in my 'close' (vb.) [kl@uz]. (The fricatives are still clearly distinct from [T] and [s], though, on fortis/lenis grounds.) Has anyone else noticed this? I bet Christophe doesn't devoice... :) Jonathan. 'O dear white children casual as birds, Playing among the ruined languages...' Auden/Britten, 'Hymn to St. Cecilia'