Print

Print


On 6 Aug 2015 07:57, "Pete Bleackley" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Surely a simpler explanation is that the [ŋg] in finger is underlyingly
[ngg]?

Interesting, but English doesn't generally have geminate consonants, so
it's weird that /ngg/ would not just reduce to /ng/.

On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 4:57 AM, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On 6 Aug 2015 07:57, "Pete Bleackley" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Surely a simpler explanation is that the [ŋg] in finger is underlyingly
> [ngg]?
>
> I.e. /ng.g/, where '.' is syllable boundary. That's a clever suggestion. My
> objections are primarily that English doesn't otherwise allow
> 'morpheme'-internal /¢.¢/, where ¢ is any phoneme (but the same one in each
> instance) and secondarily that non-ambisyllabic foot-internal clusters (as
> in, say, _vodka, walrus_) are very marked, somehow not fully kosher (in
> some theoretical sense that remains to be adumbrated).
>
> --And.
>



-- 
Mark J. Reed <[log in to unmask]>