English notation (conclusion?)

Alright, I have no problem with people claiming that /iN/ is the
official American pronunciation of <ing> -- that's exactly one of the
phonetic detail bickerings I feared in my original post.

The fact remains that while the <i> in <ing> may indeed be *phonetically
realized* as an /i/, it is clearly an allophone of the *phoneme* known
as "short i", and therefore should be transcribed as <i> rather than
<ee> in any phonemic transliteration.


Tom Tadfor Little wrote:

> Seriously, though, it's been my experience that Europeans, even when they
> learn American English, tend to have some British characteristics in their
> speech as well. Major differences, like the pronunciation of "r", short
> "o", and "a" are observed, but more subtle things, like the pacing with
> which syllables are articulated, or precise qualities of some vowels
> (particularly in unstressed syllables) are likely to follow the British
> pattern.
I consciously import a few select characteristics from British to my
"generic American", such as the pronunciation of a (moderate) aspired t
in "winter" or "banter", where Americans might erode it down to an
alveolar tap or an /n/.  I think it makes the speech much clearer
without sounding out of style.

I always pronounce my /R/s though, for the same reason of clarity.  No
/kA:z/ and /gItA:z/ for me.




-- Christian Thalmann

Replies