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

Jesse Stephen Bangs wrote:
>BUT, I don't think that /N/ is a phoneme.  I've tried to convince my
>linguistics teacher that every instance of [N] in my idiolect can be
>explained by the rules:
>
>/n/ > [N] / __{k/g}
>/g/ > 0 / N__#
>
>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?>
Not-Dirk, but I'll comment:  You're historically correct, and Chomsky/Halle
SPE _may_ even have included that rule in the phonology of Engl., but it
seems to need some conditions:  g-loss only in case of Verb +
agent -er, -ing etc.  It doesn't seem to apply in case of Adj. +
comparative -er (for most dialects):  long, longer; strong, stronger-- but
there are so few of these that perhaps _they're_ the anomalies.......?

Incidentally, further to another post, re the limited set of permissible
vowels before /N/-- sing, sang, sung, song-- how about the V of "strength"?
(For those of us who pronounce the N, not [strEnT] as many do.) Sounds like
/e/ to me; certainly not high /i ~ I/  nor low /æ ~E/