~Feenlend

Tue Feb 19 17:55:37 UTC 2008

Looks like lots of impressionistic stuff in this /I/ - /i/
discussion, and I have no doubt that there is a great deal of
regional variation, but the introduction of a nasal segment after a
vowel plays hell with production and, more importantly here,
perception, and I trust an acoustic analysis better. Let me show you
the acoustic results of a few minutes age (me, male, 68, EA,
Louisville, KY).

First, here are the Peterson and Barney values for males:

[i] (high front tense)  F1=390  F2=1990
[I] (high front lax)    F1=270  F2=2290

It's clear that [I] is lower and backer than [i].

Now me saying "sin" and "seen":
sin     F1=400  F2=1900
seen    F1=300  F2=2350

I appear to be pretty normal (kibitzers beware!), although the nasals
have no doubt had some influence on these figures; the question is,
however, about the character of [I] before [ng]:

Me again saying "sing":
sing    F1=480  F2=1850

In fact, my vowel (whatever it is) before /ng/ is even a little lower
and backer than my [I] before [n].

I believe formant characteristics introduced by the following velar
nasal may be causing some hearers to report that [I] = [i] before
[ng], but that does not appear the be the acoustic case.

I ignore here the phonological question. For me, /ng/ neutralizes the
/i/~/I/ opposition. That is, I have no minimal pairs of /i/-=/I/
before /ng/, but that is other territory (as is the complex history
of English /ng/).

Of course, other acoustic facts could come into play here (glide,
glide length, etc...), but they did not appear to be distinctive in
my quick and dirty study of myself.

dInIs

>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Poster:       Tom Zurinskas <truespel at HOTMAIL.COM>
>Subject:      Re: ~Feenlend
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Thanks Ben,
>
>I went to Seattle for 10 straight sunny 80 degree days back in Sept
>88?.  We climbed up to the snow at Rainier, and drove around the
>Pujit Sound to the Pacific to dip my toe in for the first time.
>Plan to take my wife back this summer.
>
>Anyway I think the main pronunciations of ing-ink and ang-ank are as
>discussed in my qlippit link below both for USA and UK.  Same way in
>old movies too.  Seeengin in the rain.
>
>http://www.qlipmedia.com/wqb/index.php?discid=b9da9b86
>
>Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
>See truespel.com - and the 4 truespel books plus "Occasional Poems"
>at authorhouse.com.
>
>
>
>>  Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:47:34 -0800
>>  From: blukoff at ALVORD.COM
>>  Subject: Re: ~Feenlend
>>  To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>
>>  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>-----------------------
>>  Sender: American Dialect Society
>>  Poster: Benjamin Lukoff
>>  Subject: Re: ~Feenlend
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  Interesting. I trust you've never been to Seattle, where almost everybody
>>  pronounces "sing" with the same vowel as in "sin."
>>
>>  On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Tom Zurinskas wrote:
>>
>>>  Yes indeed. "Sing,ping,wing" is pronounced ~seeng,~peeng,~weeng. Not
>>>  the same vowel as in sin,pin,win ~sin,~pin,~win. This is for UK as
>>>  well. I hope folks realize this even though dictionaries don't.
>>>
>>>  Tom Zurinskas, USA - CT20, TN3, NJ33, FL5+
>>>  See truespel.com - and the 4 truespel books plus "Occasional
>>>Poems" at authorhouse.com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:37:57 -0800
>>>>  From: blukoff at ALVORD.COM
>>>>  Subject: Re: ~Feenlend
>>>>  To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>>>>
>>>>  ---------------------- Information from the mail header
>>>>-----------------------
>>>>  Sender: American Dialect Society
>>>>  Poster: Benjamin Lukoff
>>>>  Subject: Re: ~Feenlend
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>  On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Tom Zurinskas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  One thing ~thheeng we were talking about is the sound of letter "i" in
>>>>>  words like "sing, wing, thing".
>  >>>>
>>>>>  I don't know why, but linguists ~leengwists express this sound as short
>>>>>  i when its really spoken as long e ~ee in English. My theory is that
>>>>
>>>>  Are you trying to say that "sing" is pronounced, in English, as if it were
>>>>  spelled "seeng"?
>>>>
>>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>  The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>
>>>  _________________________________________________________________
>>>  Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You
>>>IM, we give.
>>>  http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
>>>
>>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>  The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>>  The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Helping your favorite cause is as easy as instant messaging. You IM, we give.
>http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Home/?source=text_hotmail_join
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org

--
Dennis R. Preston
University Distinguished Professor
Department of English
Morrill Hall 15-C
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48864 USA

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org