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

Kristian J. wrote:
>>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".>
Aha. I was going to ask for examples. Agreed that for some
dialects/idiolects the norm for /i/ before /N/ may vary.  As for "being":
I can envision "pedantic fast speech" e.g. 'you're being [bi:N] ridiculous',
or similarly 'I'm seeing [si:N] her tonight'.  I call this pedantic, because
in ordinary fast speech the N would > n.   So [i:N] or [iN] may be
phonetically possible, but still not phonemically.  Also, as Dan Seriff
pointed out, being, seeing etc. are 2 syllables-- also 2 morphemes-- so they
don't really count.