Re: USAGE: English [N] (was: mu for [N])
|From:||Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>|
|Date:||Sunday, January 23, 2005, 15:36|
Quoting Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2005, at 07:24 , Philip Newton wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:48:33 +0000, Ray Brown <ray.brown@...>
> > wrote:
> >> not all varieties of English have phonemic /N/;
> > Eh? There are varieties where "bang" and "ban" are homophonic?
> Where did I say that!!
> In those dialects _bang_ is pronounced [baNg], which in (those dialects)
> is *phonemically* /bang/. Nor is this a spelling pronunciation; it is just
> the older pronunciation which has given way to [baN] or [b&N] in most
> modern dialects, including mine.
I've met speakers who unvoice that final stop, giving thinks like [sINg_0]. I
suppose this is the origin of the use of spellings like "sumfink" in written
representations of non-standard speech.
> Yes, that's how I say it also. The phonemic status of [N] in English is
> one of those things that phonologists like to argue about (see above). It
> has, for example, been pointed out more than once that [N] and [h] are in
> complementary distribution (at least in RP), so should that not mean,
> according to the phoneme theory, they are positional variants of the same
It would seem to give raise to problems with words like "behave" vs such like
"singer", unless one were to posit a /./ phoneme. Or perhaps one could argue
that [N] is the realization of an ambisyllabic /h/?