Yes. I was very young. “The End” was displayed at the end of a cartoon on TV. I pronounced it “thuh” and my older brother corrected me.
This. Which means, mostly, people don’t need to be taught this rule; they pick up this usage simply by being exposed to it and imitating it, just as they pick up other aspects of language.
Which means that aceplace’s pedagogic efforts with respect to his relatives’ children are at best pointless, at worst burdensome to them. If they are raised with a variant of English in which this rule is observed, they will acquire it without any conscious effort on his part or theirs.
First, the distinction is at the allophone level, not the phoneme level, and second, it depends on what else is around that phoneme, not whether it is at the beginning of a word or not.
Teaching that the rule is based on whether the morpheme is initial or not is as useful as teaching that whether you can turn right or not depends on what vehicle you’re driving. It mixes two things which are not related and provides information that’s directly wrong.
Exactly.
I never learned it since in school they were mostly concentrating on writing where, unlike “a” and “an” which we were taught, “thee” and “thuh” are indistinguishable.
I’m not sure what I do in practice, I think I use “thuh” unless it is followed by and “uh” sound in which case I switch to “thee” to help separate the words. So its “thuh apple” but “thee other apple”
Elementary teachers don’t teach two pronunciations of the in school because
a.) most of our students barely speak English and need to learn far more about vocabulary than pronunciations based on dialect
b.) we are working on getting students to say /th/ instead of /t/ or /d/
Yes–it’s similar to the different pronunciations of /t/ in North American English. It’s not simply that it be “in the middle of a word,” but also the characteristics of the surrounding phonology.
And “d,” too, in similar instances, assuming you’re talking about the intervocalic flap. People usually hear it as a “d” (so that “pedal” and “petal” are homophonous in many American dialects), but it’s actually not your standard American English “d” (which is a stop) but rather a flap consonant. There’s also aspiration for consonants like “p” and “b,” which is allophonic in English, but not in other languages (like Hindi.)
Congratulations on agreeing with what I’d said from the beginning.
Oh how I HATED phonics!!
me neither
Thee end!! I say that one!
And I agree with someone here, thee is for emphasis
Never heard “an” goes with the vowel sound too. I’ll look for that. Thanks for that one.
I always thought thee went with thou only/mostly in the bible :smack::eek:
This … is … thee … eeeend.
Jim Morrison
I think there’s some confusion in this thread about purpose of the phonics method, and that confusion mirrors the confused premise of the OP.
Phonics does not teach pronunciation. Phonics uses a learner’s innate ability to understand and speak their (first) language to teach reading–not pronunciation. Phonics works (to the degree that it does), precisely because the learner already knows how to pronounce their first language, and that’s because all people learn to speak their first language long before they start to read or write it.
For some reason everyone thinks that when they were learning by phonics that they were learning how to speak, but actually they already knew how to speak at that point. In fact, they were learning how to read.
Those are two entirely different things. “Sounding out” is not reading. It’s a bridge toward comprehension, and thereby toward reading.
I don’t understand the snippiness, but I’m glad we agree.
Not that long ago, Latin was considered an essential part of any decent education. That’s no longer the case in many modern countries.
Does this mean people today are dumber, or not as well educated?
Dumber? Of course not. Not as well educated? Yes. By definition. Of course, some of them manage to pick up a higher level of STEM knowledge than people a hundred or more years had, but the humanities are still important. I might have complained about it at the time, but I wish I had had Latin starting early in my school years while I was still plastic to new languages.
Hardly. They are just as well educated. They also arent taught Greek… or any other outdated subject, useful only to specialists. Too many people learning Latin has hurt the English language.
Thanks. Having you disagree with me is a great confirmation that I’m right.
I blame phonics for my lack of reading comprehension. Well…my lack of liking phonics. Everything was a competition in elementary. So I couldnt keep up, but I tried and skipped things I shouldnt have. 
(Wasnt phonics for comprehension?)
Boy. Ya think?
I’m a big fan of the humanities and of a broad liberal arts education but students can only learn so much. Add more subjects in and something else eventually has to go.
Maybe half of all High Schoolers took Latin a hundred or more years ago. My kids did not. Of course they did take classes in science covering material that did not exist a hundred or more years ago, read literature from parts of the world that students a hundred or more years ago thought were devoid of culture and inhabited by savages, and of course some exposure to better working with technology that did not exist even twenty years ago, let alone a hundred years ago or longer.
While my brief exposure to Latin (before my High School dropped it as an option as only six of us had signed up) was, I believe, of benefit to me, it came minimally with the opportunity cost of learning another (living) foreign language.
What would you choose to remove to make enough room for Latin in standard curricula?
How about punctuation?