Talk:Phonological history of English dental fricatives

Then-thyn split

The following has been moved from Talk:Then-thyn split Jimp 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article as it stands contists purely of material plundered from the article pronunciation of English th. Only the article title is (the term "then-thyn split") is a new contribution. Question: why is it desirable to have this material separated from the main article, and why was a change of this nature done without consultation with the people who had been working on the main article? I would of course have no objection to a new article with new emphases, but a reorganisation of existing articles should be preceeded by a consultation process. That's just a question of courtesy, surely? --Doric Loon 13:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article where this came from was too long as was said when one attempts to edit the page. Topses 01:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged all of this here (at Phonological history of English fricatives and affricates) lest we end up with a plethora of stubby articles on splits & mergers like we had a year ago. Jimp 03:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Th-weakening"

The following has been moved from Talk:Th-fronting Jimp 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the following part to the talk page because its only source is the assertion of a single Icelandic Senior Lecturer in English, who obviously invented the very term "th-weakening" - he says "Might call this th-weakening". While the assertion is completely plausible, I think that we need a more solid source, preferably a published book, and we can't use Wikipedia to impose a term that hasn't been generally accepted yet. --194.145.161.227 20:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Th-weakening is a process that occurs in dialects with th-fronting where initial [ð] lenites to zero, [n], [l], [d] or the like. As a result, "this" is pronounced [ɪs], [nɪs], [lɪs], [dɪs] or the like. ^[1]

When initial [ð] lenites to zero the following words are homophonous:

at, that
air, there
Ann, than
ow, thou
en, then

When initial [ð] lenites to [n] the following words are homophonous:

nay, they
nine, thine
now, thou
gnat, that

When initial [ð] lenites to [l] the following words are homophonous:

lay, there
line, thine
Len, then

When initial [ð] lenites to [d] the following words are homophonous:

den, then
day, they
dare, there
Dan, than
dine, thine
dhow, thou
dis, this

Elimination of examples

Great long lists of homophones aren't really helpful and can be created by anyone with a dictionary. As I merge stuff here I'm eliminating these lists. Jimp 00:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having the homophone lists do tell something about the th-mergers, particularly about what homophones they create. Sure anyone can create a list of homophones, but so can anyone find out anything about th-X without coming to Wikipedia, so should we therefore delete the th-X articles/sections from Wikipedia? I don't think so. The homophone lists give information about the mergers and they also make the article/section longer, which is good because short articles/sections are discouraged on Wikipedia. I'm restoring the homophones and don't think they should be removed unless several more people object to them. Also, I disagree about merging the articles to this article. The mergers all involve /T/, but are otherwise unrelated from each another. They're not historically or regionally related. Another thing is that it messes up the English th category. I personally agree with what User:jnestorius had to say about this in the Talk:Rhotic and non-rhotic accents archive here:

"Quote"="I don't like the way all the separate phonemic merger articles have been merged into a few omnibus articles. Some of the old articles were quite short, but so what? Some have since been expanded, rendering the current articles quite bulky. I don't see what has been gained, ... they're just separate essentially unrelated sections clumped one after the other. We already have Phonological history of the English language with links to the relevant mergers; what is gained by having those linking to subsections of a big page rather than to separate pages? In the current case, it creates the ridiculous situation of having "L-vocalization in other languages" as a subsection of "History of liquid phonemes in the English language". Yuk! jnestorius(talk)"

l-vocalization and rhotic and nonrhotic accents were once merged, but people objected to it. These shouldn't be merged either. It's like having both English and German history in an article on "History of West Germanic speaking nations". That said, a real history of the dental fricatives, i.e. a diachronic overview of their development and significance mostly in Old English and Middle English, could make a meaningful article. The current article isn't about that all. I'm unmerging them and redirecting this to pronunciation of English th. Topses 02:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lists do give us information but is it encyclopædic? Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. How are such lists helpful? As I mentioned before, anyone can create such a list. Armed with a dictionary, native-level knowledge of English or, better still, both, a person of average intellegence can make a fairly long one without much effort. And what will they have gained? A pile of relatively uninteresting information.

Consider the reader who comes across the article/section on th-fronting. If he even bothers to read through the list of homophones, how many will he remember in an hour's time? Of those that he does remember, how many would he not have been able to have come up with himself. If he manages to think of fresher/thresher, it's a fair bet he'll be able to come up with freshers/threshers.

There is information and there is information. Some information is encyclopædic and some is not. Yes, anyone can find out about anything without Wikipedia. Should we delete the whole encyclopædia? How about we keep that which a person might reasonably expect to find in an encyclopædia? Readers expect articles to contain useful information in a decently concise form not cluttered with uninteresting details.

The second reason you give for the inclusion of these lists is that they make the articles/sections longer. You know, the article Hugs and Kisses seems rather short. Let's go and add a few examples. No sarcasm intended: I wish only to illustrate my point. Short articles/sections may be discouraged on Wikipedia but lengthening articles/sections without adding any real substance is not encouraged.

"I'm restoring the homophones and don't think they should be removed unless several more people object to them." you write. I could reply "I'm removing the homophones again and don't think they should be restored unless several more people agree with them." Where would we be then? Yes, we need some kind of consensus, we need discussion amongst other editors. We're not going to get that on a talk page of a redirect without asking around.

I conceed that you have a point in that whilst the mergers all involve /θ/ (please use IPA, SAMPA's fine on talk pages but not in articles) they are otherwise unrelated to each another. Yes, a valid criticism neither historically nor regionally related. However, to me it seemed logical to group these splits and mergers under the phonemes they involve. Who knows, there may even be some underlying causality there related to the way we speak ... but, no, this is no place for speculation either.

Jnestorius had a point. The articles were merged along lines of what phoneme(s) they involved without regard for historical or regional connexions. But what was gained though? Let me try to answer this. A year ago we had a whole bunch of articles many of which were very short. Now we have this information gathered together in about a dozen and a half articles. Which is easier for the reader to navigate? For the reader who is new to the topic, which organisation of information would sooner allow him to feel that he's covered everything?

"Another thing is that it messes up the English th category." you write. Rather, it makes the category redundant. Yeah, what of it? Hey, why even have the category if these phenomena are so unrelated? Jimp 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then-thyn split

Words which got phonemic /ð/ from the split include:

there
them
they
the
their
theirs
that
then
than
thou
thine
thy
thyself
their
theirs
though
themselves
this
these
those
thence
therefore
although
smooth
breathe
lathe
bathe
lithe
wreathe
loathe
teethe
soothe
mouth (verb)
sheathe

Th-fronting

In the Cockney accent with th-fronting, the following words are homophonous:

fresher, thresher
freshers, threshers
leafy, Lethe
firm, therm
firms, therms
first, thirst
firsts, thirsts
foal, thole
foals, tholes
fie, thigh
feign, thane
feigns, thanes
feoff, thief
Finn, thin
fuse, thews
faugh, thaw
ford, thawed
faun, thorn
fauns, thorns
fought, thought
forts, thoughts
fours, thaws
fro, throe
fin, thin
froze, throes
Fred, thread
fresh, thresh
fret, threat
frets, threats
free, three
frill, thrill
frilled, thrilled
frills, thrills
fug, thug
fugs, thugs
oaf, oath
beef, Beith
deaf, death
half, hearth
infuse, enthuse
infused, enthused
infusing, enthusing
infuses, enthuses
reef, wreath
caff, Cath
loaf, loath
laugh, lath
roof, Ruth
sheaf, sheath
whiff, withe
whiffs, withes
clove, clothe
fervor, further
lave, lathe
lever, leather
live, lithe
never, nether
rave, rathe
sliver, slither
suave, swathe

Th-stopping

In Caribbean accents that merge /θ, ð/ with /t, d/ the following words are homophonous:

den, then
day, they
dare, there
Dan, than
dine, thine
dhow, thou
dis, this
breed, breathe
breeds, breathes
wrythe, ride
wrythes, rides
read, wreathe
reads, wreathes
reed, wreathe
reeds, wreathes
their, dare
they're, dare
other, udder
bathe, bayed
thank, tank
thin, tin
three, tree
third, turd
thirds, turds
thrash, trash
thanks, tanks
thinker, Tinker
myth, mitt
toot, tooth
taught, thought
meth, met
tenth, tent
maths, mats
derth, dirt
hearth, heart
birth, Bert
path, part
bath, Bart
nothing, nutting
mother, mudder
mothers, mudders

Th-alvealarization

In African varieties with the merger, the following words are homophonous:

zen, then
zees, these
sink, think
sinks, thinks
sinking, thinking
sing, thing
sings, things
sank, thank
sin, thin
path, pass
myth, miss
theme, seem
themes, seems
breathe, breeze
maths, mass
sought, thought
sick, thick
sawed, thawed
mouse, mouth
sues, soothe
song, thong
songs, thongs
clothe, close
saw, thaw
saws, thaws
sore, thaw
sores, thaws
sword, thawed
bathe, bays
lathe, lays
worth, worse
north, Norse
growth, gross
moth, moss
faith, face
sort, thought
sorts, thoughts
force, fourth
tense, tenth
eighth, ace
fourth, force
soar, thaw
soared, thawed
soaring, thawing
soars, thaws

Th-glottalization

For Scottish English speakers with th-glottalization, the following pairs are homophonous:

hatch, thatch
hatches, thatches
Hank, thank
haw, thaw
haws, thaws
herd, third
herds, thirds
hot, thought
hick, thick
hie, thigh
Hurst, thirst
hi, thigh
hin, thin
heard, third
Hank's, thanks
hug, thug
hugs, thugs
hod, thawed
high, thigh
highs, thighs
Haines, thanes

The replacement of /θr/ with /hr/ leads to pronunciations like:

three - /hri/
throw - /hro/
through - /hru/
thrash - /hr{S/
thresh - /hrES/
threw - /hru/
thrown - /hron/
thread - /hrEd/
threat - /hrEt/
throne - /hron/

Can this page be written in English, please?

I have a problem with all of these pages on pronunciation and language: they aren't written in simple English, so probably the only people who understand what they say are people who already know the subject matter. Maybe this can be remedied by linking more rather than re-writing it - for example, what's an phonemic split, what's a phoneme, what's an allophone, what's a grapheme, and how the hell do you find out how to pronounce those pronunciation symbols? Otherwise all of these articles are fairly useless. This is an encyclopaedia, not a text book.198.142.44.211 10:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. I tried to fix the problem on this particular page by wikifying (i.e. linking) and adding the standard link for the meaning of the IPA signs. It's what we normally do here, it's just that people sometimes forget. Apart from that - well, I guess the assumption is that people who are interested in reading an article on such a specific theme as this will usually have a better-than-average knowledge of the subject area, too. Of course, that's not always correct. BTW, even if the term that you don't know isn't linked, you can type it in the search box on the left. --194.145.161.227 20:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remerge

I propose the remerging of the following articles here.

It's easier on the reader to have info in one place rather than in a string of little stubs. J i m p 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is better to have separate articles or a single complex one really depends how much we want to say about these things. Some of these articles are very short, and I see no point in them when the same info is given in Pronunciation of English th. However, that article is now long enough, and I would think it would not be helpful to merge a lot more information in, so if th-fronting is a big enough topic to have a specialist article, I would let it be. But the Then-thyn split is a poor article with no information not already in the main article, so let's just delete it. (Besides, who calls it "then-thyn"? Those have different vowels and are therefore not a minimal pair. I could ignore that if it were a properly established term, but since I have usually heard it as "thy-thigh", I would think that is the better designation.) --Doric Loon 09:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.hi.is/~peturk/KENNSLA/87/VARS/THFronting.html

[1] ttp://www.hi.is/~peturk/KENNSLA/87/VARS/THFronting.html

[1]