Re: CHAT: We don't need no stinking X
|From:||Mark J. Reed <markjreed@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, February 4, 2004, 15:11|
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 10:06:50PM -0600, Nik Taylor wrote:
> "Mark J. Reed" wrote:
> > WE DON' NEED NO STEENGKEENG BADGERS!
> Okay, I have to ask. Why the spelling "Steengkeeng"? I understand
> -eeng, since many people have /IN/ there (I use /iN/ myself), but isn't
> "stink" normally /stiNk/? Or, even if they're both short normally,
> wouldn't the "ngk" be redundant? It's not normally /stInkIN/, is it?
The quality of the <i>s varies from 'lect to 'lect; in mine, it is
normally /stiNkiN/, but those are English /i/s, so it's really more
like [st1jNk1jN] or some such. In the intended pronunciation of the above,
they're Mexican Spanish /i/s, which is much closer to true cardinal [i]
than is the norm in English. Also the first syllable is a little longer
than in the usual English pronunciation.
But you're right that the "ng" is redundant; my including it was an
artifact of my brain switching into "phonetic mode".