On 2/6/07, John Vertical <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> So this rephrases the original question to: can anyone think of an English
> phrase with all of the "lexical sets" represented? We can agree on how many
> of them there are, can we?

I wonder!

At any rate, there would have to be several more than Wells' standard
set of lexical sets, to acommodate lects where certain (otherwise
extremely widespread) mergers have not taken place (e.g. wait/weight
or nose/knows).

It would be interesting to have a nearly-comprehensive set of lexical
sets, though.

Philip Newton <[log in to unmask]>