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

>Nik Taylor wrote:
>>
>> And Rosta wrote:
>> > /sejNr=/ is a much more interesting exception. It's exceptional also
because
>> > there's a long vowel, which is prohibited before /N/.
>>
>> It is?  I use /ej/ in "sang"
>
>I just discovered today that, altho the vowel in "sang" has the same
>quality as, e.g., "sane" (yet, minus the offglide), it has the *length*
>of /&/, that is:
>
>sag = [s&g]
>sang = [seN]
>sane = [se:jn]
>
>So, it could be seen as /&/ raised before /N/, but psychologically it's
>associated with /ej/.  And, of course, the same applies to Saenger -
>[seNr=] vs. [se:jnr=].  Very interesting.>
OK, this info makes me (and probably And) much happier. ;-))  So would you
revise your earlier /sijN/ 'sing' same V as  /sijn/ 'seen' to contrastive
[siN] vs. [si:jn]?(Minimal triplet  wig [wIg], wing [wiN], wean [wi:jn]?)
Not my idio/dialect but can't argue that.    I think the vowel of 'sang' is
psychologically /æ/ by me......


Your mention of people's impressionistic reactions to your "accent"--
British, various European, and _especially_ S.African-- gives me a clue:  At
least British and SA tend to be pronounced very much fronted, with
considerably more muscular tension of lips/tongue etc.,-- S.African even
more than British, to my ear (and admittedly limited exposure)-- compared to
common American.  (This difference also, I feel, underlies much of what
Adrian/Kristian have been discussing.)   So perhaps you picked up just
enough of that from your therapist that your speech is heard as somehow
"different"...?