"ing" pronounced as "ink"
>>Yeah, I think all native English speakers would tend to say [Nk] for /nk/.<<
Well, my girlfriend's idiolect is an exception to that, as she often realizes coda /nk/ as simply [k] but with the previous vowel being left nasalized. (Note that this is parallel to a far more common phonological rule here which involves /nt/ rather than /nk/.)
>>I find it really hard to actually pronounce [nk]; even languages that dont have a /N/ phoneme tend to produce it in /nk/ situations (eg. French).<<
I agree that [nk] is hard to pronounce as well, even though I can force myself to do so as well if I think about it.
"... there is such a fine difference between 'ink' and 'ing'.
"If you pronounce the 'g' in 'ing' quickly enough it comes off as 'k'."
"... the 'g' consonant, which isn't typically pronounced, throws the unsuspecting listener off."
I'd have to agree that a /g/ could be mistaken for a /k/. Therefore, yes, I s'pose in dialects which have /ng/ for <ng> it could be misheard as /nk/. However, Australian English is no such dialect and I have heard what sounded like /nk/ from some Australians. I can't think of any strong reason to conclude that this would be an underlying /ng/ rather than a mispronunciation.
"... I didn't mean to imply anything historical by 'instead'," ... fair enough.
As for [nk], I don't believe it occurs in any dialect. I'd say that all /n/s merge to [N] before velar consonants. So the /nk/ & /ng/ I mention above would be [Nk] and [Ng].
<<That implies that in French you could have [O~k] or [ONk] for "onc".
So then what's the different between [I~k] and [INk] for transcribing "ink"? They would sound the same to me.>>
The case of French is a little more complicated, because a lot of words written with 'nc' actually have nasalised vowels, as you wrote. So 'donc' is [dO~k].
>>However, Australian English is no such dialect and I have heard what sounded like /nk/ from some Australians.<<
If you say so but he is Australian and makes the sinG-sinK distinction. Funnily, it's been brought up on talkback radio.
"The case of French is a little more complicated, because a lot of words written with 'nc' actually have nasalised vowels, as you wrote. So 'donc' is [dO~k]. "
Maybe you didn't appreciate the [k] when comparing [dO~k] with [dONk], and [INk] with [I~k].
So put it this way...
Why is [lO~g] preferred to [lONg] for transcribing "longue" in French? Is it just a matter of style or convention since open-ended [O~] occurs with a great frequency? I suppose this is the case as I only see [N] used in French for "-ing" words of English origin.
Guest: <<Why is [lO~g] preferred to [lONg] for transcribing "longue" in French?>>
Because the n isn't pronounced at all. Its sole purpose is to indicate that the o before it should be nasalized.
"Because the n isn't pronounced at all. Its sole purpose is to indicate that the o before it should be nasalized. "
No, the N in [lONg] is a nasal.
Which has me thinking... even though [lON] is articulated differently than [lO~], the two don't sound so different.
That recording sounds like [nja] or [na] to me, not [N].
By the way, you must have been thinking of [n] before. e.g. [bOn] "bonne".
Actually, his second pronunciation sounds different again, like [Nna]. So it's confusing.
The weird thing is that--from what I recall--[ON] would represent two sounds and [O~] only one. That's why I don't understand why they would be the same thing to you. :-/
"from what I recall" > "from what I reckon"
Yes, that's why I was really comparing [ONg] with [O~g], [INk] with [I~k], provided there is a [k] or [g] after it, so it's not open-ended.
All I can say--because again, I'm not x-sampa savvy--is that [O~] is a nasalized o, whereas, unless I'm mistaken, [ON] is a normal o *followed* by a nasal sound. That's why I think they can't be the same thing.
Anyway could anyone tell us if Guest, or me, (or the pair of us for that matter) are wrong about this? We're--or at least I am--confused! :-)