Aberrations in the pronounciation of center (or centre, whatever)

I think I've pronounced abnormally the word "center" (I'm not native, but I pronounce AmE). I pronounced it /sener/, with no 't' (obviously the second 'e' was schwa). I don't know if this is normal in AmE or CanE. If it is, where in USA or Canada can I hear this pronounciation?

The simplification of /nt/ into /n/ is quite common in American English, so you'll often hear it pronounced "cenner". That's how I usually pronounce the word when it's unstressed.

Many of us in the US do pronounce the T. I don't know which is more common, though.

I think most people in the US don't pronounce the T, except when speaking carefully.

I myself pronounce it without the /t/, that is, as /"sEntr=/ --> ["sE~.n@`]. The pronunciation of /nt/ when between two vowels when the second of the vowels is unstressed as [n] is very common in North American English, and I pronounce it as such myself. Note though that I myself consider it as still being /nt/ which just happens to be in this context realized as [n] rather than [nt] or [n?].

it's INNERNET or INTERNET?

I pronounce it either way.

I say "internet."

Does anyone pronounce "canter" and "banter" as "canner" and "banner?"

Um...I don't ever use those words so I don't really know how to pronounce them. :)

On second thought, I think I should revise my earlier post. I actually do pronounce the un-reduced /nt/ a lot, especially in formal speech.

I pronounce "internet" as /"Intr=nEt/ --> ["I~.n@`~.nE?], so hence, yes, I pronounce it as "innernet" or sometimes even like "innerneh", as I often pronounce final glottal stops rather weakly. However, I pronounce "canter" as /k{n"tr=/ --> [k{~:n."t3`] and "banter" as /b{n"tr=/ --> [b{~:n."t3`], so hence not as "canner" and "banner" respectively, as the stress is on the vowel *after* the /nt/ cluster, which is the case in which /nt/ clusters between vowels are completely preserved in my own speech.

<<as the stress is on the vowel *after* the /nt/ cluster, which is the case in which /nt/ clusters between vowels are completely preserved in my own speech.>>

Really? I pronounce them with the stress on the first syllable - I thought everyone did.

Well, I might be getting confused by that I don't generally use the term "canter" and "banter" in my everyday speech, and I normally do speak them with [t], so hence the [t] may be just a result of formality rather than stress placement. But now that I think about it, I do have initial syllable stress on both of those words, which would make them /"k{ntr=/ and /"b{ntr=/. However, though, when I pronounce them "not carefully", that is, normally, they still aren't homophonic with "canner" and "banner", that is, /"k{nr=/ and /"b{nr=/.

Now that I think carefully about it, what seems to be happening is that the cluster /nt/ isn't really becoming [n], but rather is becoming something like [4~], with the preceding vowel being nasalized as well. That would make "canter" ["k{~.4~@`] and "banter" ["b{~.4~@`]. And also, it seems to apply to "internet" as well, which would be something like ["I~.4~@`~.nE?].

Just for the record, the difference between [n] and [4~] is *very* slight; that's why I'm still not sure that it is [4~], but such is the only thing that would really explain such being very close to [n], yet not quite homophonic with it, and such would make sense considering the tendency of /t/ to become [4] intervocalically in North American English.

Another difference is that "canter" and "banter" seem to use shorter vowels in their first syllable than "canner" and "banner" as well, which could also explain the perceived difference (on my part) between the two, rather differences in the direct realization of /nt/ itself.