"ing" pronounced as "ink"

Guest   Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:24 pm GMT
I see [INk] and [I~k] used to represent "ink" so I'd say it's the convergence with "k" that renders them the same.
Guest   Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:54 am GMT
"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. "

I agree they're not the same thing. But put it into context as I'm not isolating them in my comparisons. I'm comparing them only with certain phones added to the end of them which changes things, making the two coincide.

I thought you were confusing the nasal [N] in "sing" with [n] in "sin".

What the other Guest above wrote, regarding convergence of adjacent phones, is what I what I was trying to explain.
Eric   Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:11 am GMT
Thank you, that makes sense to me now.

Then I suppose the reason why only [O~] is used to represent the French "on" is because if we removed the g after it, it would *not* be pronounced [ON]. It would still be pronounced [O~].
You can see that in words such as "oignon" [onjO~], sondage [sO~daZ], conversation [kO~vERsasjO~], et rond et rond petit patapon [eRO~eRO~p2tipatapO~], ...
I suppose this explains why I had trouble to regard [ONg] and [O~g] as the same thing at first. Indeed, from my perspective the N was not there in the first place and the g played no part in producing the [O~]. To me, it's just a [O~] that happens to have a g after it. :-) Whereas I would assume that to you they are indivisible, right?
Guest   Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:11 pm GMT
They are divisible but I guess I was trying to unify things across language barriers unnecessarily.