Hi all,
Yep, Paul is soundly outvoted on this one! :-)
BTW, many people who don't believe they use the 'wh' phoneme, IMO do. Consider how you pronounce the word 'who' - I bet it's either 'hoo' (to rhyme with 'shoo') or - if you're the kind of person who usually drops their aitches - 'oo' (as in 'oo-er!').
And what is 'hoo' but breath + rounding + the vowel 'oo'? Just as 'which' is breath + rounding + the vowel 'I' + the consonant 'ch'. (Whereas 'witch' is rounding + the vowel 'I' + the consonant 'ch'.)
For a spoken sound to be classified as 'wh' rather than 'w', it is only necessary that it have breath ('aspiration') as well as rounding. It is not necessary that the aspiration be forceful or exaggerated, just that it be noticeable. It need not start before the breath, nor continue after it; it may do either, both or none.
While I have no doubt that many people do make homophones of 'which' and 'witch', by losing the aspiration, but I doubt that anyone can avoid using 'wh' in 'who', unless they typically sound no aitches (losing all "aspirations" ;-) )
Best,
Yahya
--- In shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com, pgabhart <pgabhart@...> wrote:
>
> I think Paul is simply wrong about the prevalence of this sound for
> those who still employ it. Those of us who use "hw" consider it
> important. Read apparently changed his mind about its importance among
> Americans, Scots etc. since he added it to Quikscript's alphabet. I
> suspect that he found after working with people around the
> English-speaking world with Shavian, that its absence was missed.
>
> The sound is subtle. My younger brother does not use it, and,
> consequently, did not hear it in my speech until I mentioned it to him.
> At that point, he was incredulous to learn that I use it in most of the
> words spelt in TO with the digraph "wh."
>
> For me, the difference between "witch" and "which" is the "hw." They
> are definitely not homophones. And the subjects of the Prince of Wales
> would never be confused with large aquatic mammals.
>
> I had a friend who is a singer. Even though he does not use "hw"
> himself in his speech, he said any well-trained singer uses it in
> singing. No singer would pronounce "why" the same as the penultimate
> letter of the Roman alphabet. I just listened to a clip of "Why do the
> Nations so Furiously Rage Together." The singer clearly uses "hw" every
> time he sings "Why do the nations..."
>
> I agree with Star and do not use "hw" for the words she notes below. I
> also pronounce "whether" with "hw" despite Paul's pronouncement that
> "hw" is never used with "whether."
>
> Paige
>
> Star Raven wrote:
> > I disagree with Wind, wisp, aware, awake and awoke. I don't pronounce
> > it awhoke.
> >
> > Contentious,
> > --Star
> >
> > ==========
> > "Life isn't worth living. It's to be taken, and beaten, and wrestled,
> > and formed in your image."
> > --Ares, Xena: Warrior Princess
> >
> > My LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/wodentoad
> > Andre Norton Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/colorado16/
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* paul vandenbrink <vandenbrinkg@...>
> > *To:* shawalphabet@yahoogroups.com
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2009 9:25:04 AM
> > *Subject:* [shawalphabet] Re: keyword pronunciation
> >
> > Hi Ethan
> >
> > I guess I did not make my point clearly enough.
> > I am not suggesting the necessity of an additional
> > Shaw Letter. It might be nice, from a phonetic point of view,
> > but that hardly makes it necessary. I am merely curious as to
> > this sound might be found, in those rare places where it does exist.
> > I suspect that outside of situation of a consonant cluster where the
> > w-sound follows an unvoiced consonant, there are remarkably few cases
> > where this sound is used. Wh is a rare Diagraph in Roman spelling, and
> > I believe most of those words, are pronounced with a voiced w-sound,
> > even by those people who can make the distinction.
> > For example, whether, is always pronounced like weather.
> > The few that I do note as still being eligible to be pronounced with
> > the un-voiced w-sound are:
> > what
> > which
> > why
> > wind
> > whoosh
> > wisp
> > aware
> > awake
> > awoke
> > awhile
> > Any other wh-sound eligable words, that you can think of?
> >
> > Regards, Paul V.
> > ____________ _________ __attzched_ _________ _________ _________ _______
> > --- In shawalphabet@ yahoogroups. com
> > <mailto:shawalphabet%40yahoogroups.com>, Ethan <ethan@> wrote:
> > > Ethan wrote:
> > > > jeff wrote:
> > > >> On Monday 2008 July 07 21:32:41 Ethan wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >>> in Shavian. While the unvoiced w sound is heard after most unvoiced
> > > >>> consonants, this still does not make it a distinct phoneme, as
> > there are
> > > >>> no examples where voiced/unvoiced w makes a difference in meaning.
> > > >> witch / which?
> > > >
> > > > Witch begins with a W sound, Which begins with an H sound.
> > > > That is, ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€"/ð�`£ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€" (wich/hwich) . Like I said:
> > > >
> > > >>> The
> > > >>> difference always depends on another letter.
> > > >
> > > > In this case it's the letter ð�`£ (ha-ha). You wouldn't say that
> > > > ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€"/ð�`•ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€" (witch/switch) was a voiceless w
> > pair would you? Why
> > > > ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€"/ð�`£ð�`¢ð�`¦ð�`â€" (wich/hwich) ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > And I should add as well that in many dialects, witch/which is not a
> > > minimal pair at all, but they are both pronounced the same. In fact,
> > > the only reason why I distinguish them is because my father and
> > > grandfather distinguished them in their speech. My mother did not, and
> > > I can go either way when I talk!
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ('> He shall cover thee with his feathers, <')
> > > /)) and under his wings shalt thou trust: ((\
> > > //'' his truth shall be thy shield and buckler. ''\\
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>