Moderator note: Split from the quoted thread.

There's a [ð] in "clothes"?... something like "weather" or "clothes".
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a [ð] in "clothes"?... something like "weather" or "clothes".
Of course there is, otherwise you'd be talking about clothsThere's a [ð] in "clothes"?![]()
Can people really pronounce /ðz/?Of course there is, otherwise you'd be talking about cloths
It's often dropped, I will admit, but in a slow pronunciation, yes.
Dictionary.com: kloʊz, kloʊðz/
Cambridge: /kləʊðz/ (US) /kloʊðz/
OED: /kləʊðz/
How do you say it?
Of course there is, otherwise you'd be talking about cloths
It's often dropped, I will admit, but in a slow pronunciation, yes.
Dictionary.com: kloʊz, kloʊðz/
Cambridge: /kləʊðz/ (US) /kloʊðz/
OED: /kləʊðz/
How do you say it?
Can people really pronounce /ðz/?
It is one of the more tricky consonant groupings but yes, in connected/assimilated speech it jumps away quite quickly (almost as much as [nasal]+[d]!).Can people really pronounce /ðz/?
I find that [kloʊz] is often an automatic alternate in rapid speech. I say either [kloʊz] or [kloʊðz] in what I perceive to be free variation.
For what I've quoted in blue, I both agree with you in general and think this is a very important point (except that I would replace "most non-linguists" with "those who've never played with a speech editor"). However w/r/t the red, for many or most Americans (and some Brits, based on the previous threads), even in slow careful speech "clothes" as [kloz] is the norm, and [kloðz] is a hypercorrection. Dialects differ, and you have to acknowledge that your fast-speech form may be my "underlying" form. It's certainly that case that I'd have to be speaking pretty fast and carelessly to get some of the forms that are standard, slow-speech, dictionary-worthy RP.But if you said you were from the "Linguistic Association of Speaking Correctly", threw a TV camera and a microphone in someone's face and said "Say this word!", then the underlying form in a slow correct manner would almost all of the time come out containing [ð]. Rapid speech alters what we think we say to a vaster degree than most non-linguists can ever imagine.
There's the sense both here and in the previous threads that [ðz] is difficult to pronounce so therefore of course it will be simplified. But there's a real difference (at least in the US) between "bathes", "soothes", etc., where [ð] is retained, and "clothes", where it tends to be dropped. There really is something special about "clothes".
Agreed. More precisely, I think there is something special about the noun clothes, because as far as I can tell, the verb clothes patterns with bathes, soothes, etc.There's the sense both here and in the previous threads that [ðz] is difficult to pronounce so therefore of course it will be simplified. But there's a real difference (at least in the US) between "bathes", "soothes", etc., where [ð] is retained, and "clothes", where it tends to be dropped. There really is something special about "clothes".
Possibly, but I think it's also because clothes is an uncountable plurale tantum that is no longer felt to correspond to any singular noun: [kloθ]? [kloð]? [klo]?Wouldn't this just be because "clothes" is much more common than "bathes"?
The reason may simply be that a plural -s of a noun behaves differently than a 3rd. sg. -s of a verb.Agreed. More precisely, I think there is something special about the noun clothes, because as far as I can tell, the verb clothes patterns with bathes, soothes, etc.
That's what I was thinking, also that the fact it's not a clear singular/plural relationship, that might affect the salience of a morpheme boundary, and morpheme boundaries can be quite fundamental in certain English phonotactic rules (i.e. -ng coalescence etc). So even if you can generalise that -s (noun) and -s (verb) behave in a similar way (I don't know if that's true, just saying if), then 'clothes' could still also be a special case because of the lack of a singular form, it's hard to say it's bimorphemic (from a natural subconscious point of view).The reason may simply be that a plural -s of a noun behaves differently than a 3rd. sg. -s of a verb.
I don't know… These two suffixes are usually said to have the same morpho-phonological properties (other than the category of the base and their morphological function, of course). The point is that the noun clothes behaves differently from the verb clothes and from other plural nouns in ‹th(e)s›, e.g. moths, lathes, paths, myths, etc. (all of which can be pronounced with a [ð] that is more stable than the one in clothes).The reason may simply be that a plural -s of a noun behaves differently than a 3rd. sg. -s of a verb.
I'm with you on lathes, and I have heard someone mention long ago in WR that paths can be an alternative (which is still something that I struggle to believe, until I hear it in real conversation I suspect it'll remain like that), but with myths/moths...really? If someone said those words to be (contextless) and asked me to write down what they were saying, I'd probably write "mith(s)" for the first one, and "mothes" for the second one, but the idea of that thing that flies round jumping into lights wouldn't even cross my mind I don't think.from other plural nouns in ‹th(e)s›, e.g. moths, lathes, paths, myths, etc. (all of which can be pronounced with a [ð] that is more stable than the one in clothes).
... when the "e" was still pronounced?And the θ → ð change that some speakers have in plurals like baths and truths is probably a remnant of the same process that applied historically in clothes.