Re: English notation

David Peterson wrote:
>     I think there is.  I say /fiNgr=/, but never /fiNr=/.  And I say /riN/,
> but never /riNg/.  Yet, they're not in complimentary distribution, for I say
> /lONr=/, never /lONgr=/.
Ah, but the distribution is predictable.  [N] occurs whenever /ng/ is
morpheme-final, except for the suffixes -er in the comparative sense and
-est (in my dialect, but apparently in yours, even that exception
doesn't exist).  So, "singer" = /sing|r/ (I'm using | to show morpheme
boundary) = [siNr=], but "finger" = /fingr/ = [fiNgr=].  And, supporting
the idea that this is a synchronic, rather than diachronic, phenomenon,
is the suffix -monger as in "fishmonger".  Originally, it was based on
the now-obsolete verb "mong" + "er", but is no longer seen that way.
Thus, -monger = /mOng|r/ became /mOngr/, i.e., [mONgr=].

--
Cenedl heb iaith, cenedl heb galon
A nation without a language is a nation without a heart - Welsh proverb
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTaylor42