Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!insosf1.infonet.net!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Lunatic orthography (was Re: Esperanto as a stepping stone?
Message-ID: <D2ILHy.3nF@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <3ergbm$g14@condor.cs.jhu.edu> <rharmsen.109.0015D233@knoware.nl> <D2Ctqt.K3M@spss.com> <rharmsen.130.000D0261@knoware.nl>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 20:13:09 GMT
Lines: 23

In article <rharmsen.130.000D0261@knoware.nl>,
Ruud Harmsen <rharmsen@knoware.nl> wrote:
>In article <D2Ctqt.K3M@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>>Cf. "a not-too-sharp brake widh dha past"; if you meant to use "th" for 
>>unvoiced /T/, that should have been "with dha past".
>
>Well, my "Concise Oxford Dictionary" says "with" has the dh sound, [...]

Another British dictionary confirms this, while two American dictionaries
I consulted gave [wiD] and [wiT] as alternatives, in that order.  And here
I thought everybody said [wiT].  You could knock me over widh a feather.

>It's also interesting whether "with"  in the context "with the" is pronounced 
>differently than in other contexts: There could be a tendency to say "with 
>dha" to stress that there are really two different sounds involved, or the too 
>(especially if the first might be also dh) could be merged into one? 

I hope you don't mean to say that an *orthography* should try to reproduce
alterations between words (Sanskrit does, but for religious reasons I 
believe, it being important to preserve the absolutely exact pronunciation).

If you're just asking about how it sounds, I believe I pronounce "with the"
in rapid speech as "wIT@", but "with that" as "wiD&t".  
