There is a lot of th/TH variation in English partly because this contrast carries so little functional load. Outside of noun/verb pairs where generally an orthographic silent <e> marks voicing, there are few minimal pairs for the contrast: thigh/thy, ether/either, and maybe one or two more. And both of those are odd in other ways that make them at best weak minimal pairs. In thigh/thy the voiced member is an archaic second singular pronoun; in ether/either, "ether" is a relatively late borrowing with 1587 the earliest print citation. And "either" is a conjunction. In either case, the voiced variant is in a function word and the voiceless in a content word. This reflects the development of the voicing contrast in fricatives in Old English, where they were voiceless unless between voiced sounds, that is, they were never in contrast. It was under the influence of French loan words and dialect borrowings from Southern English dialects that /z/ and /v/ became contrastive. French didn't have an interdental fricative, and so the loanword pressure was never there. As a result, the phonemic status of the contrast in interdentals never became fixed. By the way, another word where BE and AmE differ is THiTHer/thiTHer. I grew up with the latter in Michigan. Hisotrically, the former is original, in line with all of the other function words in TH-.
Herb
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN 47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Webmail bdespain [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: January 31, 2010 6:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: voiced and voiceless TH; was ATEG Digest - 29 Jan 2010 to 30 Jan 2010 (#2010-10)
When I said "some regions" I did not realize the extent of this phenomenon in the U.S. It makes me wonder: Is this like the many features of London or SE England accents that propogate outward changing the habits of speakers through time and space. The pronunciation of the vowel in "bath" and many similar words, where a fricative or a nasal +fricative follows, was earlier like that in "trap" and still is for most regions. The non-rhotic feature seems to center earlier in London and over the years has spread out across the British Isles. (In the US it seems isolated to Eastern NE and the Deep South.) Perhaps this voicing of "th" is another feature of British English that has changed historically, while the speech of the colonies has remained the more conservative in this respect.
My own singing habits seem to correspond to Scott's. Choir leaders often have to instruct their singers to drop the ugly syllabic "r". This seems to be in immitation of the normal singing habits of the British English, which would be based on their normal speaking accent.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Scott <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Interesting that my idiolect has an unvoiced in bequeath, booth, tollbooth,
with, herewith, wherewith, and forthwith, as well as absinthe, nepenthe,
and panther. All of these I heard in my youth long before I ever saw them
written. For 'without," as best I can reconstruct, I speak it unvoiced but
sing it voiced
I also notice that I give an unlaut on the vowel for many words with
the voiced th but not with the high vowel ee.
My formative speech patterns were those of the educated Deep South;
my only exposure to other speech patterns in my preschool years was
radio: I was an addict by age two. I thought that FDR sounded really
funny in his fireside chats: Mother explained that Yankees do not sound
like we do when we talk but that fact does not mean that you should not
listen. Do not judge the value of what someone says by how unusual he
sounds.
Do other educated rural/small town Southerners have the same variation that
I do? If not, do any such commenters 70 and over share my speech pattern?
Is it a distinction based on race?
Scott Catledge
-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of ATEG automatic digest system
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 12:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: ATEG Digest - 29 Jan 2010 to 30 Jan 2010 (#2010-10)
There are 3 messages totalling 242 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. unvoiced TH and voiced THE (3)
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:33:41 +0000
From: Edmond Wright <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: unvoiced TH and voiced THE
I have come to notice a common preference in England for the spelling
'loath' over 'loth' (meaning 'disinclined'). I have always used the
latter, following the general distinction between words that end in 'th'
having that consonant unvoiced (rhyming with 'both') as against the verb
'loathe' (meaning 'intensely hate') which has the voiced consonant.
However, I should not be pedantic because the addition of 'a' in the
spelling usually does not disturb the application of the rule that it be
unvoiced if no 'e' is added. Are 'loth' and 'loath' (as the adjective
meaning 'disinclined') pronounced unvoiced in America?
Indeed, a look in the dictionary shows that 'loath' -- with the unvoiced
consonant -- has for a long time been used for the 'disinclined' meaning,
presumably because of the semantic association between 'disinclined' and
'intensely hate'.
Elsewhere the addition of 'e' (or 'er' or 'ern') does signal the voiced
consonant (as well as change in the pronunciation of the vowel). The
'reverse dictionary' gives a long list, but here are a few examples:
bath - bathe
breath - breathe
broth - brother
cloth - clothe
heath - heather
lath - lathe, lather
south - southern, southerly
wreath - wreathe
megalith - lithe
moth - mother
rath (Celtic earthwork) - rather
sheath - sheathe
sooth (obs. 'truth') - soothe
teeth - teethe (cf. seethe)
There are a few anomalies:
VOICED (without added 'e' or 'er')
bequeath
booth, tolbooth
mouth (verb meaning 'speak exaggeratedly')
smooth (adj.)
with (same as 'wither'), and 'wherewith', herewith', etc.
UNVOICED (with added 'e' or 'er')
absinthe
anther
ether (compare voiced 'either')
lethal, Lethe
nepenthe
panther
Edmond
Dr. Edmond Wright
3 Boathouse Court
Trafalgar Road
Cambridge
CB4 1DU
England
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Website: http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/elw33/
Phone [00 44] (0)1223 350256
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:44:35 -0500
From: Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: unvoiced TH and voiced THE
On 2010-01-30, at 2:33 AM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar =
wrote:
> I have come to notice a common preference in England for the spelling
> 'loath' over 'loth' (meaning 'disinclined').
The preference is international and historical. In fact, in the Corpus =
of Current American English, 'loath' is about 50 times more common than =
'loth' where in the British National Corpus, it's only about five times =
more common.
> Are 'loth' and 'loath' (as the adjective
> meaning 'disinclined') pronounced unvoiced in America?
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives both voice and unvoiced with =
voiceless listed first.
Best,
Brett
-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 06:07:20 -0700
From: Webmail bdespain <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Subject: Re: unvoiced TH and voiced THE
--0016e6d272f7abd6d7047e616e25
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Edmond,
I have also noticed, at least in some regions of the U. S., that the "th" in
"bequeath", "booth", and "with" have lost their voice. I think that the
loss of voice in the common preposition may come in stages where some people
let it vary depending on whether the next word begins with a vowel or not.
Bruce
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Brett Reynolds
<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>wrote:
> On 2010-01-30, at 2:33 AM, Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
> wrote:
>
> > I have come to notice a common preference in England for the spelling
> > 'loath' over 'loth' (meaning 'disinclined').
>
> The preference is international and historical. In fact, in the Corpus of
> Current American English, 'loath' is about 50 times more common than
'loth'
> where in the British National Corpus, it's only about five times more
> common.
>
> > Are 'loth' and 'loath' (as the adjective
> > meaning 'disinclined') pronounced unvoiced in America?
>
> Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives both voice and unvoiced with
> voiceless listed first.
>
> Best,
> Brett
>
> -----------------------
> Brett Reynolds
> English Language Centre
> Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
> Toronto, Ontario, Canada
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
> at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> and select "Join or leave the list"
>
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016e6d272f7abd6d7047e616e25
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div>Edmond,</div>
<div>I have also noticed, at least in some regions of the U. S., that the &=
quot;th" in "bequeath", "booth", and "with&qu=
ot; have lost their voice.=A0 I think that the loss of voice in the common =
preposition may come in stages where some people let it vary depending on w=
hether the next word begins with a vowel or not.=A0 </div>
<div>Bruce<br><br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Brett Reynolds =
<span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>">brett.rey=
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]></a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div class=3D"im">On 2010-01-30, at 2:33 AM, Assembly for the Teaching of E=
nglish Grammar wrote:<br><br>> I have come to notice a common preference=
in England for the spelling<br>> 'loath' over 'loth' (m=
eaning 'disinclined').<br>
<br></div>The preference is international and historical. In fact, in the C=
orpus of Current American English, 'loath' is about 50 times more c=
ommon than 'loth' where in the British National Corpus, it's on=
ly about five times more common.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>> Are 'loth' and 'loath' (as the a=
djective<br>> meaning 'disinclined') pronounced unvoiced in Amer=
ica?<br><br></div>Merriam-Webster's online dictionary gives both voice =
and unvoiced with voiceless listed first.<br>
<br>Best,<br>Brett<br><br>-----------------------<br>Brett Reynolds<br>Engl=
ish Language Centre<br>Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced =
Learning<br>Toronto, Ontario, Canada<br><font color=3D"#888888"><a href=3D"=
mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>">[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]></a><br>
</font>
<div>
<div></div>
<div class=3D"h5"><br>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the=
list's web interface at:<br>=A0 =A0 <a href=3D"http://listserv.muohio.<http://listserv.muohio./>=
edu/archives/ateg.html" target=3D"_blank">http://listserv.muohio.edu/archiv=
es/ateg.html</a><br>
and select "Join or leave the list"<br><br>Visit ATEG's web s=
ite at <a href=3D"http://ateg.org/" target=3D"_blank">http://ateg.org/</a><=
br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--0016e6d272f7abd6d7047e616e25--
------------------------------
End of ATEG Digest - 29 Jan 2010 to 30 Jan 2010 (#2010-10)
**********************************************************
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
