On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 02:54, Steg Belsky wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:18:20 +0100 Barbara Barrett > <[log in to unmask]> writes: > > > > > John Jotted; > > > > > Well, the simple fact that there isn't any minimal pair > > between > > > > > /T/ and /D/, > > > Barbara Babbles; > > I'm sure that these qualify; > > sooth /su:T/ and soothe /su:D/ > > although "sooth" is pretty archaic nowadays, however, > > these get pretty close to a minimal pair; > > Bath /baT/ and Bathe /beID/ > > with /wIT/ and width /wIdD/ > - > > You actually pronounce "width" /wIdD/? I do to. And I pronounce 'fifth' and 'eighth' with /tT/s. Why one is in 'eighth' is fairly clear. I'm guessing it only found it's way into 'fifth' to separate the /f/ and /T/. Or maybe I pronounce 'width' as /wItT/. I think perhaps there's no phonemic difference between /tT/ and /dD/. > I've always as far as i remember pronounced it /wIT/, as a homophone with > "with". > > Actually, in elementary school i got in trouble with my teacher during a > homophone/homonym project for pointing out that "our" can be homophonous > with both "hour" and "are", depending on whether you're pronouncing it > [&wr=] or [ar]. I generally use the [ar] version, myself. For me, 'our' is a near homonym with 'ow!' (the difference being the length and tone of voice used to say it ;) ), but nothing else. Tristan.