Re: THEORY: [i:]=[ij]? (was Re: Pronouncing "Boreanesia")

Nik Taylor:
> jesse stephen bangs wrote:
> > where # indicates a morpheme boundary.  Thus, "sing" is underlying
> > /sing/; "ringer" is ['riNr=] because of the morpheme boundary
> > /ring#+er/; "finger" is [fiNgr=] because it's a single morpheme.  Does any
> > one (read: Dirk) care to disagree?
>
> Hmm, interesting view.  Ah!  Just found an exception: longer = (at least
> in my dialect) /lANgr=/, same with "longest" = /lANgIst/.  Also, there's
> a theater in my home town called /sejNr=/ (can't remember the spelling),
> monomorphemic, but does not have /Ng/.  By your theory, it should be
> pronounced [sejNgr=]
It's not just Jesse's theory: it's a very well-known generalization. _longer,
longest, stronger, strongest_ are exceptions; their exceptionality can
unproblematically be handled as irregular inflectional morphology.

/sejNr=/ is a much more interesting exception. It's exceptional also because
there's a long vowel, which is prohibited before /N/. How is it spelt? Do
you know where the name comes from?

--And.