Re: English notation

Muke Tever wrote:

> [N] after front vowels either is not the same as the [N] after, say, [V] in
> "rung"--it's assimilated to the vowel, producing something closer to [i:JglIS]
> (where [J] = palatal nasal).
Whoa dude.  That's weird.  Like, totally.  ;-)


> Same goes for the many words ending in -ing.   <sing> is absolutely not [sIN]
> (even if it may be /sIN/ phonemically).  (But that may just be me, as two
> people next to me I just asked have [I] in -ing, .)
Aaaah... now there we have it.  My proposed notation is phonemic, not
phonetic.  It's obvious that English has a plethora of possible phonetic
realizations, so it's futile to attempt to notate it phonetically.

Therefore, in phonemic notation, sing would be <sing> rather than
<seeng>.


> >Even an average American, who knows as good as nothing about
> >linguistics, would have to realize after some contemplation that the
> >sound in "English" is the same as in "bin": a short, lax /I/.
>
> The second vowel, surely ;p
Jerk.  ;-)  And since we're nitpicking: The second vowel in English
isn't nasalized, but "bin" is.  =P


--  Christian Thalmann