# Pronunciation: clothes



## ampurdan

According to dictionaries and traditional English teachers, it should be /kləʊðz/ (BrE) or /kloʊðz/ (AE), but I'm told most people say /kləʊz/ or /kloʊz/ in everyday speech. So, "clothes" and "close" (as in "Close the door, please!) sound exactly alike. So, how do you pronounce "clothes" normally?


----------



## Welshie

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone drop the 'th'. It is unstressed and might be difficult to hear but it is definitely there.


----------



## sound shift

I agree with Welshie. I pronounce the "th" (because I have always done so; I have never referred to dictionaries or teachers for advice). I have never heard anyone claim that most people omit the "th".


----------



## Majorbloodnock

Welshie said:


> I don't believe I've ever heard anyone drop the 'th'. It is unstressed and might be difficult to hear but it is definitely there.


Really? In contrast, I've heard lots of people dropping the "th". They also typically say:

"innit" instead of "isn't it"
"arf" instead of "half"
"wossup" instead of "what's up"
"oi" instead of "excuse me"
Don't get me wrong; I'm not being a snob. I can easily understand what they're saying, so their communication is perfectly effective. However, no matter how regularly their pronunciation is used, it's still currently incorrect.


----------



## ampurdan

Well, I learned that from an American English teacher on the Spanish radio. He said he was of the opinion that ALL native speakers (including British ones) dropped the "th", even though some would never admit to doing so (because they were unaware of their own relaxed pronunciation).


----------



## entangledbank

I've never heard it - which of course means never noticed it - without the [ð]. I've seen the ð-less pronunciation recorded in older dictionaries, as if it was once (like, 1900) the RP standard; but if it ever was a majority form, it's been entirely replaced by the spelling pronunciation. Of course in very fast or casual speech, it and a lot of other sounds are going to drop out, but in normal speech it's clearly [ðz] regardless of local accent.


----------



## Majorbloodnock

ampurdan said:


> Well, I learned that from an American English teacher on the Spanish radio. He said he was of the opinion that ALL native speakers (including British ones) dropped the "th", even though some would never admit to doing so (because they were unaware of their relaxed pronunciation).


We have a saying in the UK (and probably elsewhere as well)

_Those who can - do._
_Those who can't - teach._

It implies that anyone who's any good at something will be busy using their skills, whilst it's the second-rate people who teach, since (being surrounded by people who don't know any better) it's an easy way to look good with relatively little skill.

Obviously, that's a huge exaggeration, since good teachers are incredibly valuable, and it's actually difficult to be a good teacher. However, as with many sayings, there is a grain of truth. There are indeed quite a few incompetent or mediocre teachers, so don't assume something is fact just because it was a teacher who said it.


----------



## Musings

I second Welshie's thought.


----------



## ampurdan

To be fair, he expounded on it as his opinion and acknowledged that other teachers/people hold dissenting views, not as an incontrovertible fact.

He nevertheless recommended Spanish learners not to try to pronounce "clothes" with the "th", because that /ðz/ clutch is tricky for us, and just pronounce it like "close". Purportedly, everybody should understand it and no one would notice the difference.


----------



## Majorbloodnock

Probably better to assume native speakers *will* notice the difference, but understand what you're saying nonetheless. If your goal is speaking to be understood, that's as far as you'll need to take it. However, if your goal is to speak English like a native, it's worth practicing the alien sounds.

Eventually, it's simply a matter of deciding how good is good enough for you?


----------



## Packard

I never thought about it until now.

I pronounce "clothes" as "cloze", but I put the "th" in "clothing".

I'm going to have to listen to other New Yorkers and see if this is common or just me.


----------



## ampurdan

Interesting. There's no smoke without fire, after all.

Now I've checked the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary.

*clothes* kləʊ_ð_ z kloʊ_ð_ z
 
Please, notice that "_ð_ " is in italics; which according to this same dictionary means that this sound "may be ommited".

When I click to hear the two records available (AE and BrE), the first one clearly does not include "_ð_ " while it is still audible in the second one.


----------



## Packard

ampurdan said:


> Interesting. There's no smoke without fire, after all.
> 
> Now I've checked the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary.
> 
> *clothes* kləʊ_ð_ z kloʊ_ð_ z
> 
> Please, notice that "_ð_ " is in italics; which according to this same dictionary means that this sound "may be ommited".
> 
> When I click to hear the two records available (AE and BrE), the first one clearly does not include "_ð_ " while it is still audible in the second one.


 

This sort of thing was not taught in my school days (or maybe it was and it was "my school daze").

So please explain what this means:  *clothes* kləʊ_ð_ z kloʊ_ð_ z


----------



## Welshie

Majorbloodnock said:


> Really? In contrast, I've heard lots of people dropping the "th". They also typically say:
> 
> "innit" instead of "isn't it"
> "arf" instead of "half"
> "wossup" instead of "what's up"
> "oi" instead of "excuse me"
> Don't get me wrong; I'm not being a snob. I can easily understand what they're saying, so their communication is perfectly effective. However, no matter how regularly their pronunciation is used, it's still currently incorrect.



I am perfectly familiar with the 4 contractions you give. But I still don't think I've heard 'clothes' without the 'th'  Even in very relaxed speech where the 'th' is not pronounced clearly, the word still does not sound the same as 'close', because there is still something coming between the o and the s. (ask a linguist!)


----------



## ><FISH'>

I've now come to the realization that I'm one of those who says "Cloze" instead of "Clothes". Even in non-relaxed speech all I can say is Cloze. I'd say it's pretty common and natural for it to be pronounced this way as well. It's quite a difficult word to pronounce fully, even for a native speaker.


----------



## Majorbloodnock

Welshie said:


> I am perfectly familiar with the 4 contractions you give. But I still don't think I've heard 'clothes' without the 'th'  Even in very relaxed speech where the 'th' is not pronounced clearly, the word still does not sound the same as 'close', because there is still something coming between the o and the s. (ask a linguist!)


No, I quite understand what you mean, Welshie. I've heard the word without a "th", but I do admit I find it more common for "cloves" to be pronounced in full .


----------



## bronsonduerden

Coming from another North American speaker, i say -clothes- exactly the same as -close (as in, 'close the door')-.  It's probably us just being lazy, but most people that I know say it the exact same way.  But as was mentioned earlier, I do say the -th- in -clothing-. 
The only time I might pronounce the -th- in the word -clothes- is if someone didn't hear me, then  might say it a little bit slower and pronounce the -th-.  However in everyday speech in the US, it is said as if it was the word, "close (as in, 'close the door)."


----------



## mplsray

Packard said:


> This sort of thing was not taught in my school days (or maybe it was and it was "my school daze").
> 
> So please explain what this means:  *clothes* kləʊ_ð_ z kloʊ_ð_ z



It's the pronunciation of _clothes_ represented in the International Phonetic Alphabet. The symbols əʊ represent the vowel in _pose_ in British English while oʊ is the same vowel as pronounced in American English. The symbol ð represents the first consonant of the word _this._ Making it italic to show that it can be omitted is a practice of the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary.


----------



## Packard

mplsray said:


> It's the pronunciation of _clothes_ represented in the International Phonetic Alphabet. The symbols əʊ represent the vowel in _pose_ in British English while oʊ is the same vowel as pronounced in American English. The symbol ð represents the first consonant of the word _this._ Making it italic to show that it can be omitted is a practice of the Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary.


 

Thank you.  It has been around since 1888 so I can't claim I predated it (or I can't claim that and still sound credible).

Best regards,

Packard


----------



## Kittiwake

Majorbloodnock said:


> No, I quite understand what you mean, Welshie. I've heard the word without a "th", but I do admit I find it more common for "cloves" to be pronounced in full .


 
I'm guilty of saying "cloves" instead of "clothes" when I'm not keeping my common-as-muck London accent in check. I say "v" instead of "th" way too often in many different words.


----------



## Topsie

Majorbloodnock said:


> No, I quite understand what you mean, Welshie. I've heard the word without a "th", but I do admit I find it more common for "cloves" to be pronounced in full .


I admit to being guilty of encouraging my (French) students to pronounce their "th"s like "f"s or "v"s - rather than "s"s, "z"s, "t"s or "d"s... if they can't manage a perfect "th", that is! It hadn't occurred to me to teach "cloze" though - until now!


----------



## missMD

As a non-native English speaking, pronouncing has always been difficult to me, especially with hard words like clothes. I always tried very, very hard to somehow get the"th" sound in there with not much success. One day I was just talking with my ESL teacher and she told me that she pronounces clothes the same as the verb "close" That's when I let out a sigh of relief, yay I don't need to pronounce the th! close is so much easier! Just a little personal story. I'm not trying to say which way is right and which one is wrong, but that's the way my teacher teaches me, and I have to admit that new realization makes life easier for me


----------



## ><FISH'>

Just a note... if "clothes" is too difficult to pronounce, don't just say it as "cloze/close". It can still sound ambiguous. Say "Klo-es" instead. English-speakers do tend to omit sounds often, but sometimes the sound is replaced with a thingy (I don't know the proper term) which is kind of like emphasizing the absence of a sound. "Clowes/Kloes" is a better substitute for the missing "th" sound.


----------



## timpeac

><FISH'> said:


> Just a note... if "clothes" is too difficult to pronounce, don't just say it as "cloze/close". It can still sound ambiguous. Say "Klo-es" instead. English-speakers do tend to omit sounds often, but sometimes the sound is replaced with a thingy (I don't know the proper term) which is kind of like emphasizing the absence of a sound. "Clowes/Kloes" is a better substitute for the missing "th" sound.


I think that you're making a similar point to one I was planning to on reading this thread.

I think that the "th" can be dropped (but by no means consistently is) but if it goes then you need to drag out the "es" for an extra syllable to compensate. It sounds strange to me if you simply say "close".

If I had to guess, this would be because the "th" is still there - the mouth is making a vague gesture with the tongue, which still takes some time - but it's become so assimilated (for those who speak like this) that it's not that easy to hear the sound itself, but you can hear where it should be.


----------



## Spira

I have now repeated the word in question out loud 20 times, with and without the "th".
Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard anyone pronounce clothes like close (as in close the door), on either side of the Atlantic.
Although as a Londoner I am quite familiar with the version "cloves".


----------



## timpeac

Spira said:


> I have now repeated the word in question out loud 20 times, with and without the "th".
> Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard anyone pronounce clothes like close (as in close the door), on either side of the Atlantic.
> Although as a Londoner I am quite familiar with the version "cloves".


I'm not sure that you necessarily would convince yourself that it sometimes happens by repeating the word to yourself, because I suspect that whatever it may sound like native-speakers still make some sort of gesture with the muscles of their mouths for the syllable (and so in you own head you can feel that you are pronouncing something). Just how much that sound comes through to other listeners depends on how assimilated the sound is. After all, it is a short step from "cloves" to "clowes" which is what I'm suggesting it is (in other words a vowel stretched out to cover the beat of the missing consonant).


----------



## ampurdan

From all your answers, I gather that there might be a AE-BrE difference here:

Some or Americans, or maybe all of them, generally pronounce "clothes" like "cloze". They do not do that "thingy" with the tongue FISH was talking about.

Britons pronounce "clothes", although they may transform it to "cloves", "clowes" or "clo-es" (akin to a glottal stop, maybe?). However, as "clothes" with its "th" is what they have in mind, they always "hear" a sound, even when American speakers drop the "th". 

Converselly, an American speaker, used to his pronunciation, might hear "close" when a British speaker pronounces "clowes" or "clo-es".

Just an ad-hoc home-made hypothesis.


----------



## Rover_KE

I say it exactly like 'close'.

Rover


----------



## Spira

timpeac said:


> After all, it is a short step from "cloves" to "clowes" which is what I'm suggesting it is (in other words a vowel stretched out to cover the beat of the missing consonant).


 
It might be a short step, but it is unrelated. The "v" is pronounced by those unable or too lazy to form the "th" sound. These people would not eliminate the "v" to produce clowes (cloze).


----------



## Loob

ampurdan said:


> From all your answers, I gather that there might be a AE-BrE difference here:


I don't think there's really a BrE/AmE divide, ampurdan....

I'm pretty sure I don't pronounce the /ð/ in fast, connected, casual speech. But I do think I pronounce "clothes" a bit differently from "close": there's a - very slight - difference in the quality of the vowel. My 'basic' long 'o' is better represented by /oʊ/ than by the (to me) ultra-RP /əʊ/. What I think happens when I say "clothes" quickly is that, even though I don't really articulate the /ð/, my tongue moves towards the /ð/ position, and this ends up flattening the vowel slightly. However, the only way to prove that would be to get hold of one of those speech-analyser-machine things. And would anyone notice the difference if I substituted "close" for "clothes"? Almost certainly not: we hear what we expect to hear, after all.

I think it's a good idea to teach your students that they can say "close" for "clothes" when they're speaking quickly and casually. (That said, I'd probably take a different view on "breeze" and "breathes". I suspect we're more likely to pronounce at least a residual /ð/ in "breathes" than in "clothes" - perhaps because the transition from the vowel to the /ð/ is easier?)

At this point, I should probably say that I've never done much in the way of phonetics....

Who said "it shows"?


----------



## timpeac

Spira said:


> It might be a short step, but it is unrelated. The "v" is pronounced by those unable or too lazy to form the "th" sound. These people would not eliminate the "v" to produce clowes (cloze).


How do you know?

In any case, I didn't mean that one follows on from the other but rather the two sounds are very similar and both are related by being realisations of the assimilated "th".


----------



## solidcell

In the US, almost everyone says it like "close", despite what most of the British are saying about how we pronounce it.


----------



## Spira

timpeac said:


> How do you know?
> 
> Because this is a London "working-class" thing, that's all. Nothing to do with eliminating the "th", just deforming it. I think most Londoners are familiar with it.


----------



## ampurdan

This is the line that parodied the famous "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain" of _My Fair Lady_, in an episode of _The Simpsons_ called "My Fair Laddy":

"What fl*ows* from the n*ose* does not go on my cl*othes*".

That pretty much settles the issue for AE, right?


----------



## Pertinax

Fowler says that the original pronunciation was "close".  E.g Shakespeare:
_Then up he rose, and donned his clothes._

Fowler adds that "this is often deliberately abstained from in the mistaken belief that it is 'vulgar or careless'".

In light of that, I am sorry to say that I pronounce the "th".


----------



## timpeac

ampurdan said:


> This is the line that parodied the famous "The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain" of _My Fair Lady_, in an episode of _The Simpsons_ called "My Fair Laddy":
> 
> "What fl*ows* from the n*ose* does not go on my cl*othes*".
> That pretty much settles the issue for AE, right?


In these forums? No, I'd say either they're wrong in their attempt at a pastiche, or that they are having a double level of irony. Even if "clothes" might be pronounced "cloze" by many (perhaps most) AE speakers in daily speech, I think they'd agree (I say hiding behind the sofa waiting for the disagreement) that it's not the "posh" or "careful" pronunciation. The point of "the rain falls mainly on the plain..." is someone with an (overly) correct accent teaching someone how they "should" pronounce words. It would be bizarre (unless it's a double layered joke, as I suggest) to use a phrase containing "incorrectly" pronounced words as a pedantic teaching aid for how to pronounce words well.

Or perhaps it's a triple irony, bearing Fowler's words in mind. Who knowze?

Edit - In any case, I would doubt Fowler's assumption mentioned by Pertinax. Let's say that the word "clothes" was commonly pronounced "cloze", as Fowler implies, in Shakespeare's time. It would take a very literate, and very over-thinking population, to later link this to the word "cloth" and the way that unvoiced "th" of "cloth" becomes voiced "th" of "the" in the plural and influences the vowel to change from that of "hot" to that of "hose" and so reintroduce the vocalised "th" (in the way that a more modern English speaking people has reintroduced the "t" if "often", pronounced "offen" in Shakespeare's time, and still by many today). I really don't think most native speakers link the, relatively unusual, word "cloth" with the common word "clothes". I think this is reflected in the fact that "clothes" is a separate idea and not a plural of "cloth" (which is "cloths" pronounced "cloths" with the unvoiced "th" and an ess) - we don't think of clothes as being a collection of cloths. So I say Fowler is wrong - he can't impute an "original" pronunciation from Shakespeare's rhyme, just that Shakespeare, as many today, pronounced it "cloze".

That is a long-winded way of me saying that the original form must have been "clothes" with the vocalised "th", and perhaps that predated Shakespeare's time.


----------



## CapnPrep

timpeac said:


> In any case, I would doubt Fowler's assumption mentioned by Pertinax.


I would be more inclined to doubt Pertinax's reformulation of Fowler (and Gowers). In fact, they refer to "the old pronunciation", not the _original_ pronunciation. The original pronunciation — whatever that means — not only contained _th_, but was also disyllabic. No one would recommend that pronunciation today.


----------



## Pertinax

I regret if my use of the word "original" has given rise to some confusion.  I was referring to its original pronunciation in modern English.  What Fowler 1926 actually wrote, in full, was:

_The old pronunciation is ["close"], with ample authority from  rhymes in 17th-c. and 18th-c. poets, including Shakespeare (Then up he rose  and donned his clothes). But this is often deliberately abstained from  in the mistaken belief (once supported by the OED but abandoned by its  successors) that is is 'vulgar or careless', and, unless the  articulation of the th is found too difficult, it is likely to disappear  under the influence of the speak-as-you-spell movement.
_
My OED says this:
_Almost immediately after the reduction of the M.E. disyllabic form to one syllable, by change of "es" to "s", the ["th"] began to disappear in pronunciation in all the dialect types, as shown by the spellings close, cloes etc._

There follows a list of examples of the "close" form from 1400 to 1845.


----------



## CapnPrep

Pertinax said:


> What Fowler 1926 actually wrote, in full, was: […]


Not quite… As I indicated above, your quotation is from the 2nd edition (1965), and all of the historical information (about "the old pronunciation" and Shakespeare) appears to have been added by Gowers. What Fowler _actually_ actually wrote in 1926 was:


> *clothes*. The usual pronunciation is klōz, though this is often deliberately abstained from in the mistaken belief (confirmed by the OED) that it is 'vulgar or careless'. (source, p. 80)


----------



## Packard

Funny thing:  When I speak "clothes" it sounds like "close".  But when I read it aloud it comes out with the "th" slightly added.  Anyone else seeing this phenomenon?


----------



## newname

My ð-droppping   friends. Would you do the same for all other words that end with /ðz/ like mouths, bathes, soothes?


----------



## CapnPrep

newname said:


> Would you do the same for all other words that end with /ðz/ like mouths, bathes, soothes?


No. The noun _c__lothes_ is exceptional, even compared to the verb _clothes_. See this thread:
English: "Clothes" - stability of /ðz/, reduction to /z/


----------



## newname

Thanks for the link.


----------



## dragon warrior 3

Is there an _audible_ difference between "clothes" and "close"?


----------



## Rover_KE

Only when 'clothes' is used as a verb.


----------



## Korisnik116

Some English-speaking people tend to follow the penultimate phoneme in the pronunciation of the word "close" with the /ð/ phoneme when pronouncing the noun "clothes" (i.e., in the same manner as they'd pronounce the verb).


----------



## se16teddy

dragon warrior 3 said:


> Is there an _audible_ difference between "clothes" and "close"?


Yes: most native speakers can pronounce /ðz/ without problem.


----------



## dragon warrior 3

<Dragon Warrior's thread added here. Nat, Moderator>

An American told me there was no audible difference between clothes and close, just as there isn't one between "internet" and "inner net".


----------



## chipulukusu

dragon warrior 3 said:


> just as there isn't one between "internet" and "inner net".



That must be the case in AE. In BE you will always distinctly hear the first _t_ in _internet._


----------



## dragon warrior 3

I see. Thank you everyone!


----------



## london calling

dragon warrior 3 said:


> An American told me there was no audible difference between clothes and close, just as there isn't one between "internet" and "inner net".


I agree with Chip about 'internet ' in BE.  And I also pronounce 'close ' and 'clothes ' differently (I speak Standard Southern British English).


----------



## Linkway

dragon warrior 3 said:


> Is there an _audible_ difference between "clothes" and "close"?



Yes, massive difference.


----------



## Glenfarclas

dragon warrior 3 said:


> An American told me there was no audible difference between clothes and close, just as there isn't one between "internet" and "inner net".





chipulukusu said:


> That must be the case in AE



It isn't.  In very rapid and relaxed speech some of those intermediate sounds may get swallowed up (cf. _gonna_ for _going to_, "_jeet'chet_" for _Did you eat yet?_), and for people like me the T in the middle of _internet_ normally comes out sounding like a D, but both of the sounds in question are widely and generally pronounced.


----------



## sdgraham

dragon warrior 3 said:


> An American told me there was no audible difference between clothes and close, just as there isn't one between "internet" and "inner net".





chipulukusu said:


> That must be the case in AE. In BE you will always distinctly hear the first _t_ in _internet._


I would not make that generalization about the internet.


----------



## Sparky Malarky

There are big differences in regional pronunciation in the United States.  In some parts of the country, people can neither hear nor pronounce the difference between *pin* and *pen.
*
The difference between *close *and *clothes* is very subtle.  I hear it, but to be honest, I think I hear it mostly because I know it's there.


----------



## suzi br

sdgraham said:


> I would not make that generalization about the internet.



It is not very wise to make huge generalisations about any of these - to me.  

I imagine lots of folk think they say "cloTHez" and probably would when reading it as a single word off  a list - but in rapid speech there is a definite shift to "close" that folk wouldn't even notice.  This is true of lots of words - people can do the "precise" articulation but do not always do it in rapid speech.


----------



## You little ripper!

suzi br said:


> This is true of lots of words - people can do the "precise" articulation but do not always do it in rapid speech.


Even when I speak rapidly I make sure the word doesn't sound like "close". It annoys me when I hear others pronounce it that way.


----------



## sound shift

You little ripper! said:


> Even when I speak rapidly I make sure the word doesn't sound like "close".


Same here.


----------



## natkretep

Many dictionaries allow for two pronunciations, here's Oxford Dictionaries:
clothes - definition of clothes in English | Oxford Dictionaries
*clothes*
/kləʊ(ð)z/


----------



## dragon warrior 3

I just checked Merriam-Webster. It confirms that "clothes" and "close" are pronounced identically. However, I might mention that it is an American dictionary.
I am surprised that there are Americans who pronounce them differently.


----------



## JulianStuart

dragon warrior 3 said:


> I just checked Merriam-Webster. It confirms that "clothes" and "close" are pronounced identically. However, I might mention that it is an American dictionary.
> I am surprised that there are Americans who pronounce them differently.


Not so fast there!
From the Merriam Webster page for clothes Definition of CLOTHES
\ˈklōz _*also*_ ˈklōthz\  They give one that is identical to close (verb) but also the one with the voiced th.


----------



## Rover_KE

chipulukusu said:


> In BE you will always distinctly hear the first _t_ in _internet._


You won't hear it from the millions of (mainly) younger people who glottal stop nearly every _t_ they encounter – including both _t_s in internet.

***

I love this (true) story in a newspaper feature of amusing things children say.

A mother shouted upstairs to her two little girls, 'Put your clothes on and come down for your breakfast'.

A few minutes later the elder child came downstairs and said 'I've put all my clothes on, mummy, but Debbie's only put one clo on.'


----------



## london calling

You little ripper! said:


> Even when I speak rapidly I make sure the word doesn't sound like "close". It annoys me when I hear others pronounce it that way.


Ditto.


----------



## Meerana

<Added to this thread. Nat>
Hi all great teachers. I want to make sure from a point in English which is the word clothes. I know that the pronunciation in dictionary is /kləʊðz/ , but I always hear it  /kləʊz/, so which one is correct? I mean shall I pronounce it with the sound ð or without it?  specially that it is pretty difficult to pronounce it with it.


----------



## owlman5

Meerana said:


> I mean shall I pronounce it with the sound ð or without it? specially that it is pretty difficult to pronounce it with it.


I don't think that it matters much, Meerana. If you find _kloʊðz _hard to pronounce, don't worry about the _'th' _sound. Your listener probably won't even notice that the _'th'_ sound is missing in your pronunciation of the word.


----------



## entangledbank

This has been discussed before. Some people omit the [ð], and that is common historically too, but it is quite normal (and I think more common) to pronounce the sound [ð].


----------



## Meerana

Thank you so much to all of you 😍


----------



## dojibear

Meerana said:


> I know that the pronunciation in dictionary is /kləʊðz/ , but I always hear it /kləʊz/, so which one is correct?


Saying you can't hear it does not mean it isn't said. The word "close" is pronounced /kləʊz/, so /kləʊðz/ is correct.



Meerana said:


> I mean shall I pronounce it with the sound ð or without it? specially that it is pretty difficult to pronounce it with it.


English is difficult to pronounce for speakers of Arabic (and most other languages!).



owlman5 said:


> I don't think that it matters, Meerana. If you find _kloʊðz _hard to pronounce, don't worry about the _'th' _sound.


I strongly agree with this. It is best to say things comfortably for you, even if that means "imperfect".

Nobody expects perfect. Native speakers make mistakes. Listeners often don't even notice mistakes.
Even if we notice them, we never correct them (unless we don't understand). That is rude.

The "clothes/close" case isn't a problem. Any place you would say "clothes", you would not say "close".


----------



## elroy

entangledbank said:


> Some people omit the [ð], and that is common historically too, but it is quite normal (and I think more common) to pronounce the sound [ð].


That may be the case for UK English.  In US English, it’s the opposite.  I’ve heard it with the [ð] a small number of times, so that pronunciation does exist, but the pronunciation without is vastly more common, used in all registers, and generally not considered incorrect or substandard.  And this is distinct from words like “breathes” (for example), which may undergo reduction in rapid speed but are at least pronounced with the _intention_ of pronouncing the [ð].  In the [ð]-less pronunciation of “clothes, there is never such an intention, so there’s nothing _to_ reduce.  It’s simply a homophone of the verb “close.”  The two sound identical; phonetically, there is _nothing at all_ between the vowel and the [z] — not even something that is not [ð] but not there in the verb “close.”  The vowel is not lengthened, there is no constriction of any sort, etc.  The tongue doesn’t do _anything_ it wouldn’t do for the verb  “close.”  The two are 100% identical in both production and perception.  In the case of this particular word, deletion — not reduction — of the [ð] has produced a new, stable, consistent standard pronunciation that is acquired directly by children.  Those who do pronounce the [ð] may sometimes reduce it, and it may end up sounding different from the verb “close” even if there’s no actual [ð], but that’s an entirely different process, with different outcomes, from that of those who don’t even intend to pronounce the [ð], which is the vast majority of speakers as I said.

This seems to be a clear US/UK difference.


----------



## Meerana

@dojibear 
@elroy 
I appreciate your information so much 😍 glad to know this today from you💐💐💐💐❤️


----------



## kentix

I agree with Elroy about American usage. The vast majority of the time, it's cloze, in my experience. But definitely clothing.


----------



## Rover_KE

I've told the following story before, so skip it if you remember it.

The Daily Mail has a feature where parents send in amusing things their children say. 

One mother shouted upstairs to her two young daughters 'Put your clothes on and come down for your breakfast'.

After a few minutes the elder child came down and said 'I've put all my clothes on, Mummy, but Debbie's only put one clo on'.


----------



## JLP222

ampurdan said:


> According to dictionaries and traditional English teachers, it should be /kləʊðz/ (BrE) or /kloʊðz/ (AE), but I'm told most people say /kləʊz/ or /kloʊz/ in everyday speech. So, "clothes" and "close" (as in "Close the door, please!) sound exactly alike. So, how do you pronounce "clothes" normally?


Clothes is pronounced as it looks, pronouncing the 'th' in the middle. Some people do not speak properly, even if they are native English speakers. It depends how you were brought up. If you want the correct pronunciation it is not CLOSE but CLOTHES.


----------



## Wordy McWordface

JLP222 said:


> Clothes is pronounced as it looks, pronouncing the 'th' in the middle. Some people do not speak properly, even if they are native English speakers. It depends how you were brought up. If you want the correct pronunciation it is not CLOSE but CLOTHES.


Seen this?

Definition of CLOTHES


----------



## heypresto

Wordy McWordface said:


> Seen this?
> 
> Definition of CLOTHES


 Really? Let's hope it's MW living up to its nickname _Mostly Wrong_ here.


----------



## elroy

heypresto said:


> Really? Let's hope it's MW living up to its nickname _Mostly Wrong_ here.


What do you mean?  Hasn’t it been made clear in this thread that the [ð]-less pronunciation is very common in US English?  The one with [ð] also occurs, just less commonly.  This and most of its entries show that Merriam-Webster is _Mostly Well-informed_ (I don’t know why it gets a bad rap).


----------



## JulianStuart

I think it's the noun form of clothes where the th disappears to a greater or lesser extent.  The verb use strikes me as one where the voiced th remains.


----------



## elroy

Yes, in the verb the [ð] is never omitted in my experience — at least not consciously.


----------



## dojibear

JulianStuart said:


> I think it's the noun form of clothes where the *th* disappears to a greater or lesser extent.


My opinion: 

I do not think that "th" is dropped intentionally. If a person would intentionally drop "th" in speech, I think they would drop it in writing also. But we don't see that. 

I agree that the "th" sound can be very hard to hear -- sometimes impossible to hear, depending on the speaker, the sentence, the listener, the ambient sound, the nearness of any tugboats...

That makes this one of many sounds in English that might be un-hearable in conversational speech.


----------



## elroy

It is definitely dropped intentionally by many people — by which I mean they’re not trying to pronounce the <th>.  For those people (I’m one of them), it’s simply a homophone of the verb “close.”  There are many letters we don’t pronounce but still write: we don’t pronounce the second “b” in “bomb,” but we don’t spell it “bom.”


----------



## Forero

elroy said:


> It is definitely dropped intentionally by many people — by which I mean they’re not trying to pronounce the <th>.  For those people (I’m one of them), it’s simply a homophone of the verb “close.”  There are many letters we don’t pronounce but still write: we don’t pronounce the second “b” in “bomb,” but we don’t spell it “bom.”


Just as we pronounce the "b" in the noun "number" but never in the adjectives "number" and "numbest" or in the noun "beach comber", we (where I live) pronounce the voiced "th" in the verb "clothes" but never in the noun "clothes". The voiced "th" is not a sound that we could inadvertently omit before a "z" sound.


----------



## dojibear

elroy said:


> It is definitely dropped intentionally by many people — by which I mean they’re not trying to pronounce the <th>.


The WR dictionary supports that, listing two "correct" pronunciations for "clothes" in AE, with and without the "th":

clothes /kloʊz, kloʊðz/ 
clothes (klōz, klōᵺz) 



elroy said:


> by which I mean they’re not trying to pronounce the <th>


Maybe that is my confusion. I don't normally "try to pronounce" English words. When I speak, I don't even know what words I am using, much less how I pronounce them. To discuss questions in the WR forums, I may intentionally pronounce an English word. But do I do it the same as I do it in sentences?

A related word is "clothespin". I don't pronounce "th" in that word. Yet the WR dictionary shows three "correct" pronunciations:

clothes•pin /ˈkloʊzˌpɪn, ˈkloʊðz-, ˈkloʊs-/  
clothes•pin (klōz*′*pin′, klōᵺz*′*-, klōs*′*-),


----------



## Forero

dojibear said:


> A related word is "clothespin". I don't pronounce "th" in that word. Yet the WR dictionary shows three "correct" pronunciations:
> 
> clothes•pin /ˈkloʊzˌpɪn, ˈkloʊðz-, ˈkloʊs-/
> clothes•pin (klōz*′*pin′, klōᵺz*′*-, klōs*′*-),


I pronounce it to rhyme with "nose pin".


----------



## Loob

dojibear said:


> A related word is "clothespin". I don't pronounce "th" in that word. Yet the WR dictionary shows three "correct" pronunciations:
> 
> clothes•pin /ˈkloʊzˌpɪn, ˈkloʊðz-, ˈkloʊs-/
> clothes•pin (klōz*′*pin′, klōᵺz*′*-, klōs*′*-),


Intriguing! Is /s/ really an option at the end of the "clothes" part?


----------



## Forero

Loob said:


> Intriguing! Is /s/ really an option at the end of the "clothes" part?


Not for me.


----------



## kentix

I haven't heard it, but as shifts go, it's a pretty small one.


----------



## Elle Paris

ampurdan said:


> Well, I learned that from an American English teacher on the Spanish radio. He said he was of the opinion that ALL native speakers (including British ones) dropped the "th", even though some would never admit to doing so (because they were unaware of their own relaxed pronunciation).


Well, I'm a native American English teacher and I say the voiced "th" and the vocal "se" (pronounced like "Z") just afterwards. like "the" and "Z" very "squished together".  Saying "close" for "clothes" would be like saying "whiff" for ''with"! 🙃


----------



## Elle Paris

london calling said:


> I agree with Chip about 'internet ' in BE.  And I also pronounce 'close ' and 'clothes ' differently (I speak Standard Southern British English).


I tend to say a "pointy" pronounced "t" for names like Martin and Martinez while many latinos use a glottal stop for Martin but not for Martinez. I don't say "inner net" for "internet" but maybe it's because I have taught English for so long. I don't say "egication" for "education" nor do I say "innertain" for "entertain". What do you do? I'd be curious to find out !


----------



## dojibear

ed-dyu-kei-shun // ent-ər-tein.

I use a glottal stop for the English name "Martin" (/ˈmɑr ʔən/), but I use a T for the Spanish name "Martin" (/mɑr ˈtin/),
which I pronounce "Mar-teen".


----------



## pops91710

Elle Paris said:


> I tend to say a "pointy" pronounced "t" for names like Martin and Martinez while many latinos use a glottal stop for Martin but not for Martinez. I don't say "inner net" for "internet" but maybe it's because I have taught English for so long. I don't say "egication" for "education" nor do I say "innertain" for "entertain". What do you do? I'd be curious to find out !


I agree on each and every point!


----------



## Hermione Golightly

About clothes, I definitely don't drop the 'th' - it's quite prominent in fact. I think a student can say 'clothes' like the verb 'close'. That would be much better than saying 'closes', which sounds silly.


----------

