G-sound in ''finger''

<<Richard said: "You can roll your eyes, but if Robert is not speaking lazily, then why does he say /fIN@`/ instead of /fINg@`/ for ''finger''?"

Richard, do you pronounce the "G" in ringer? As I doubt you do (since most people don't), should I call you lazy too?>>

No. I don't pronounce the ''G'' in ''ringer''. But there are morphemic reasons for there not to be a /g/ sound in ''ringer'', whereas in ''finger'' there are no such morphemic reasons, and thus it's just plain lazy not to pronounce a /g/ in that word.

And likewise, Richard, do you use good solid trills and taps for your /r/ phoneme, or do you use those lazy alveolar approximants?

<<No. I don't pronounce the ''G'' in ''ringer''. But there are morphemic reasons for there not to be a /g/ sound in ''ringer'', whereas in ''finger'' there are no such morphemic reasons, and thus it's just plain lazy not to pronounce a /g/ in that word.>>

"Ringer" was once pronounced with a full [Ng], and it made perfect morphemic sense because "ring" was pronounced [r\INg]. It's just plain laziness (as you would put it) that has led to final /Ng/ turning into /N/.

<<"Ringer" was once pronounced with a full [Ng], and it made perfect morphemic sense because "ring" was pronounced [r\INg]. It's just plain laziness (as you would put it) that has led to final /Ng/ turning into>>

Yes, and now the few dialects that have kept the historical /g/ there are labeled "non-standard" or "deviant" by prescriptivists. According to Richard and Pete's logic, then "standard" dialects would be "lazy" for having lost the historical /g/.

I agree with Richard who said
"I myself always pronounce the /g/ in ''finger''. To not pronounce it is plain lazy."
I prefer a good strong /g/ sound in this word. As in many other words, there is an aspect that transcends issues of personal and regional preferences. It is that of clarity. In these days when so much of our communication is performed on various types of telephone, sometimes in noisy environments, speech is often a very fuzzy version of the original when it arrives at our ears. For this reason, it enhances intelligibility if any apparent redundancy in each word is pronounced by the speaker. Consonants enhance this clarity. "Finger" has two syllables and it should be heard that way!
By the way, I have an unrelated comment that I don't want to be regarded as a "flame". Richard, please don't take offence, but I want to point you to the redundancy in the first part of your sentence, "I myself", and that split infinitive, "to not pronounce....". Ah, well, as I boldly go.....!!

<<<<Richard, please don't take offence, but I want to point you to the redundancy in the first part of your sentence, "I myself", and that split infinitive, "to not pronounce....". Ah, well, as I boldly go.....!!>>

There is not a single legitimate reason to stigmatize the split infinitive, and in some contexts its use is to be encouraged. Take the sentence, "I plan to really enjoy the party", in which you can't split the infinitive without a) sounding stilted and awkward or b) losing meaning.

I should also point out that "myself", "yourself", etc. have a role as emphatic pronouns that not even the most hardened prescriptivist would dispute. Richard's sentence was emphasizing the contast between his speech speech habits and Ulster Man's, and while it was a dumbass sentence, there was nothing wrong with using an emphatic pronoun there.

<<I should also point out that "myself", "yourself", etc. have a role as emphatic pronouns that not even the most hardened prescriptivist would dispute.>>

Now, that is true. Even the wildest of prescriptivists wouldn't find a problem with that sentence. Pete, with that and your other comments you have no idea what you're talking about.

Lazar, I knew I was taking a risk by going somewhat off-topic in my nag at Richard. I just joined this forum today so I'm not quite sure of the procedures. What does one do to follow up in cases like this? Should one start a new topic? Anyway, I'm thrilled to find the enthusiasm that is so evident here. Lazar, you and I were clearly educated in the English language in different times or different places. The two points that you made regarding split infinitives and emphatic pronouns both refer to transgressions that would have caused a wooden blackboard rubber to have been projected towards my head at high velocity if I had used them in school. Thanks for your response. I think I'm going to enjoy your company for some time to come!

<<I just joined this forum today so I'm not quite sure of the procedures. What does one do to follow up in cases like this? Should one start a new topic?>>

If you're really interested in a certain issue, then sure, you can start a topic about it. Threads often go completely off topic, but in an ideal world I suppose they shouldn't. ;-)

<<Anyway, I'm thrilled to find the enthusiasm that is so evident here.>>

Unfortunately there's also a lot of animosity and trollery. But there is indeed some legitimate discussion and genuine enthusiasm.

<<Anyway, I'm thrilled to find the enthusiasm that is so evident here.>>

Welcome to the forum :)

<<The two points that you made regarding split infinitives and emphatic pronouns both refer to transgressions that would have caused a wooden blackboard rubber to have been projected towards my head at high velocity if I had used them in school.>>

Even most prescriptivist sources have dropped the insistence on not splitting infinitives, which was a "rule" that never fit well with English, but was devised in the 18-19th centuries by grammarians who admired Latin and wanted to make English grammar more like Latin (which never split infinitives because it wasn't even possible--it was an integral unit of the verb). However, trying to impose Latin-like rules on Germanic languages like English is like trying to fit a circle block into a square hole. Not ending a sentence in a preposition is another good example of this (Germanic languages commonly do it). Most more recent prescriptivist sources on language usage have also given up on that one, since it doesn't really make sense for English either (of course, prescriptivist "rules" rarely do, but that's another issue and another post).

<<Not ending a sentence in a preposition is another good example of this (Germanic languages commonly do it).>>

As with the split infinitive, trying to avoid sentence-final prepositions (which pop up quite commonly in English as part of phrasal verbs) can produce awkward and often comical results, like the various "up with which I will not put" quotes that have been attributed to Churchill.

By the way (and completely off topic), have you ever contemplated that in a "broad" analysis of parts of speech, prepositions could really just be a bunch of adjectives and adverbs? That thought occurred to me a few years ago.

<<As with the split infinitive, trying to avoid sentence-final prepositions (which pop up quite commonly in English as part of phrasal verbs) can produce awkward and often comical results, like the various "up with which I will not put" quotes that have been attributed to Churchill.>>

Yup, such prescriptivist rules are actually some of the most laughable, since they're wholly irrelevant to how English has always been structured (as compared to prescriptivists just preferring one natural English construction over another, which is misguided enough, but at least the issue is with natural forms and not something trying to emulate a very different language. That just makes no sense).

OK - I think that maybe I will get around to opening a new thread about split infinitives, although I suspect it has been done. I'll look at the archives first. Here, for my last remark on this, I just want to focus on what refers to what in a split infinitive situation. In "I want to really enjoy myself", the enthusiasm expressed by "really" refers to the wanting more than to the enjoying, so it is logical, correct and comfortable to say "I really want to enjoy myself." If it is really desirable to qualify "enjoy" then one can say something like "I want to enjoy myself immensely." In this way, it is possible to say exactly what is meant without "developing" the language by misuse.
Thanks all for your welcoming remarks. By the way, I should mention that I was born and educated in Yorkshire. Now you can put all my remarks in context!

<<And likewise, Richard, do you use good solid trills and taps for your /r/ phoneme, or do you use those lazy alveolar approximants?>>

I use the alveolar approximates. Using the alveolar trills and taps would make you sound like a nonnative speaker. No native speakers of English uses those.