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)

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)

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)

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)

"Th-weakening"

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

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Remerge

I propose the remerging of the following articles here.

• Th-alveolarization
• Th-fronting
• Th-glottalization
• Th-stopping
• Then-thyn split

It's easier on the reader to have info in one place rather than in a string of little stubs. Jimp 04:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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)