Re: USAGE: Permissable /IN/ (was: [i:]=[ij]?)

I wrote:

>Roger Mills wrote:
>
>>Irina wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Nik Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> */IN/ is illegal in my idiolect.
>>>
>>>Then how do you pronounce "thing"?>
>>
>>Permissible pontification: (?) there is no tense/lax contrast in English
>>before /N/ or /r/ (at least in monosyllables).  The vowel is neither [i] nor
>>[I], but somewhere in-between-- usually closer to [I] I think (it is for
>>me).
>
>Actually, /IN/ is quite permissable in English, and I suspect in Nik's
>dialect as well. The thing is, /I/ is raised so that it resembles [i].
>Hence, the lack of the tense/lax contrast before /N/ that Roger pointed
>out. *BUT*... there is still a length contrast so that one can still
>phonologically speak of a contrast between /IN/ and /iN/.
I may have to take that back. I can't for the life of me think of any
examples of English words that have this contrast other than perhaps
"being" and "bingo".

-kristian- 8)