Do you all actually pronounce a /g/ sound in ''finger''? The dictionary says that ''finger'' has a /g/ sound in it, but I pronounce it /fIN@`/. I'm from Ulster Scotland.
G-sound in ''finger''
At least in the my dialect (that of the Milwaukee, WI area), it is
"finger" -> /"fINg@`/ -> ["fI~:N.g@`]
"finger" -> /"fINg@`/ -> ["fI~:N.g@`]
I pronounce it /fIng@r/ --> ["fiNg@`], so yes I have /g/ --> [g] there.
<</"fINg@`/ -> ["fI~:N.g@`]
/fIng@r/ --> ["fiNg@`]>>
It's interesting how you two use different phonemic notations.
/fIng@r/ --> ["fiNg@`]>>
It's interesting how you two use different phonemic notations.
The main thing is the reason why I favor /Ng/ over /ng/ here, even though both would be realized as [Ng] in the end, is because historically such derived from /ng/ -> [Ng] turning into just /N/, except in some cases the following /g/ was retained. Consequently, it would be simpler to assume that *all* cases of /ng/ within any given morpheme changed to /N/, with some just not losing the /g/, rather than dividing them into /N/ and /ng/. Of course, such over morpheme boundaries and especially word boundaries is another matter, where I would prefer to then retain /n/, due to it being found alone as [n] when the following morpheme or word is not present.
As for the other notational differences, the main thing is that I prefer to more consistently mark vowel length and nasality in phonetic transcriptions than many when transcribing English, and in particular my own dialect thereof, since in my own dialect often such tend to be rather important, due to some word pairs only being distinguished by vowel length, some words having vowels which are nasalized without a following nasal consonant due to the elision of said nasal (while retaining the nasalized vowel), and due to many words just sounding "wrong" without having the proper vowel length and nasality.
<<I pronounce it /fIng@r/ --> ["fiNg@`], so yes I have /g/ --> [g] there.>>
Interesting. /g/ never occurs after /N/ in my speech.
Interesting. /g/ never occurs after /N/ in my speech.
<<It's interesting how you two use different phonemic notations.>>
Yeah, phonemic representations can be abstract, but I just mark bare-bones phonemic distinctions on the phonemic level. One of the reasons I used phomemics here was to show that I wasn't making a typo in using [i] for the first vowel in "finger." Phonemically, I analyze it as /IN/, but I have a sound rule in my dialect that raises front vowels before /N/, so here /IN/ --> [iN].
Yeah, phonemic representations can be abstract, but I just mark bare-bones phonemic distinctions on the phonemic level. One of the reasons I used phomemics here was to show that I wasn't making a typo in using [i] for the first vowel in "finger." Phonemically, I analyze it as /IN/, but I have a sound rule in my dialect that raises front vowels before /N/, so here /IN/ --> [iN].
I pronounce the G in finger and linger, but not in ringer, bringer, stinger, swinger, slinger, or singer.
I myself always pronounce the /g/ in ''finger''. To not pronounce it is plain lazy.
<<To not pronounce it is plain lazy.>>
Not at all. Language variation entails different sounds sometimes change or disappear in various dialects.
Not at all. Language variation entails different sounds sometimes change or disappear in various dialects.
<<I myself always pronounce the /g/ in ''finger''. To not pronounce it is plain lazy.>>
What? I myself pronounce ''finger'' as /fIN@`/. Why does that make me lazy?
<<Phonemically, I analyze it as /IN/, but I have a sound rule in my dialect that raises front vowels before /N/, so here /IN/ --> [iN].>>
Interesting.
What? I myself pronounce ''finger'' as /fIN@`/. Why does that make me lazy?
<<Phonemically, I analyze it as /IN/, but I have a sound rule in my dialect that raises front vowels before /N/, so here /IN/ --> [iN].>>
Interesting.
<<Not at all. Language variation entails different sounds sometimes change or disappear in various dialects.>>
And I should've added that sounds sometimes change or disappear in various dialects, including the supposed standard ones, which are also dialects.
<<What? I myself pronounce ''finger'' as /fIN@`/. Why does that make me lazy?>>
Of course it doesn't :)
Robert, I should also mention that the sound rule that applies to my dialect does not work across morpheme boundaries. I explain this in full in a chart I made here (I would post it here but antimoon does not support bbcode so I can't show the chart):
http://www.langcafe.net/viewtopic.php?t=286
And I should've added that sounds sometimes change or disappear in various dialects, including the supposed standard ones, which are also dialects.
<<What? I myself pronounce ''finger'' as /fIN@`/. Why does that make me lazy?>>
Of course it doesn't :)
Robert, I should also mention that the sound rule that applies to my dialect does not work across morpheme boundaries. I explain this in full in a chart I made here (I would post it here but antimoon does not support bbcode so I can't show the chart):
http://www.langcafe.net/viewtopic.php?t=286
<<What? I myself pronounce ''finger'' as /fIN@`/. Why does that make me lazy?>>
Because you're leaving out a sound that most people don't leave out. That's why you're being lazy.
Because you're leaving out a sound that most people don't leave out. That's why you're being lazy.