Skip to main content

pronunciation - Is there any word in English where "th" sounds like "t+h"?


It might be a strange question, but I, as a non-native speaker (Pakistani), have listened to English pronunciations by my native people who have over time developed their own pronunciations.


So, I heard the word "THUG" with the pronunciation "T" + "HUG" (T, as in tyre, tank, tip, etc). But I later found out that the "TH" in thug is pronounced like the th in thought, thin, etc.


Since then, I am trying to think whether the pronunciations of TH as T+H are acceptable anywhere else or not? Is there such a word?



Answer



In general, the "t" and "h" in "th" are only pronounced on their own when they appear in English words that originated as compound words (such as rat-hole becoming "rathole", foot-hill becoming "foothill", and light-house becoming "lighthouse"). In each of these cases "th" is not a single sound, but rather two sounds, "t" and "h".

Instead, "th" is almost universally (in English, that is) used as a digraph (which means that both the 't' and the 'h' combine to form a single sound; in other words, you could replace the "th" with some symbol without losing meaning). Basically, if you wanted to, you could consider "th" its own letter.

The primary ways "th" is used in English are:
As a voiceless dental fricative, such as in "thing", "thug", "throw", or "math".
As a voiced dental fricative, such as in "this", "then", "soothe", "lithe", "bathe", or "smooth" (which a long time ago used to be spelled "smoothe").

While those are the primary uses of "th", there are some instances where "th" is used to import foreign words, that have sounds that most English speakers can't differentiate/can't pronounce (for example, I think the word "Thailand" is written with a "Th" because the "t" sound is supposed to be an aspirated consonant, but I can't make or understand the difference between that and non-aspirated sounds, so I'm not the best judge for that); typically we'll take those sounds and ignore aspiration, or pronounce them in one of the other two ways I mentioned.


It may also interest you to look at the letter thorn Þ, which was used in written English several-hundred years ago. It was replaced by "th" as German printing presses did not come with the symbol, and adding it in would have been too costly.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.