Pronunciation of longevity

[Ramapriya D]

I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft and hard G. You?

Ramapriya

[Peter Moylan]

On 07/04/15 15:02, Ramapriya D wrote:

> I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft and hard G. You?

I have only heard the version with the soft G. It would never even have
occurred to me that a hard-G version might exist.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Guy Barry]

"Ramapriya D" wrote in message
news:7481fb23-9f8d-41c8...@googlegroups.com...

>
>I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
>and hard G. You?

Soft G for me.

--
Guy Barry

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-04-07 07:45:10 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 07/04/15 15:02, Ramapriya D wrote:
>
>> I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a
>> soft and hard G. You?
>
> I have only heard the version with the soft G. It would never even have
> occurred to me that a hard-G version might exist.

+1

--
athel

[Iain Archer]

Ramapriya D <d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote on Mon, 6 Apr 2015 at
22:02:38:

>I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a
>soft and hard G. You?
>

OED has "[like] dj as in judge (main stress)"
--
Iain Archer

[Ramapriya D]

Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

Ramapriya

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 7 Apr 2015 10:14:25 +0100, Iain Archer <iane...@gmail.com>
wrote:

But unlike the j?

How about like the g in ginger?

And how about gingivitis?

And could that cause problems to someone who wants to ask the way to
Gingindlovu?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Guy Barry]

"Ramapriya D" wrote in message

news:2db09d10-9d63-4957...@googlegroups.com...

>
>On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:14:58 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
>> news:7481fb23-9f8d-41c8...@googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
>> >and hard G. You?
>>
>> Soft G for me.

>Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word
>with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the other
hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is nearly always
pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound after
the "g", which I've never understood).

--
Guy Barry

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:33:39 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
> news:2db09d10-9d63-4957...@googlegroups.com...
> >
> >On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:14:58 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
> >> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
> >> news:7481fb23-9f8d-41c8...@googlegroups.com...

> >> >I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
> >> >and hard G. You?
> >> Soft G for me.

+1

> >Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word
> >with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)
>
> I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the other
> hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is nearly always
> pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound after
> the "g", which I've never understood).

(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

[Ramapriya D]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:33:39 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
>
> I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the other
> hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is nearly always
> pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound after
> the "g", which I've never understood).
>
> --
> Guy Barry

I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft 'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)

Ramapriya

[James Silverton]

+2

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[Jerry Friedman]

Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mark Brader]

Ramapriya D.:

>>> I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
>>> and hard G. You?

Guy Barry:
>> Soft G for me.

Agreed; that's the only way I've heard it. I would have thought that
if another pronunciation was used, an "ng" sound would be more likely
than a hard G.

Ramapriya D:

> Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
> word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There, see? That's an "ng", not a hard G. Hard G is with "ge" as in "get".
--
Mark Brader | "No, I'm disagreeing with you. That doesn't mean I'm not
m...@vex.net | listening to you or understanding what you're saying:
Toronto | I'm doing all three at the same time." -- Aaron Sorkin

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Mark Brader]

"Guy Barry":

> On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g")

Not really; hard G is also common before I. Consider "gift", "gig",
"gird", "girl", "git", "give", and all the "gim-" words.

> is nearly always pronounced with a hard "g" ...

Really! I've only ever heard it with soft G.
--
Mark Brader | "What ever happened to the concept of 'less is more'?"
Toronto | "Ah, but if less is more, then just think how much
m...@vex.net | more more would be." -- Frasier (David Lloyd)

[Guy Barry]

"Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
news:1fa776c8-a870-4330...@googlegroups.com...

To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from older
speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not ['lA.NgdIt,ju:d], which
is what my post above probably suggested. No idea where the [d] came from
though.

--
Guy Barry

[Peter T. Daniels]

That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude." It's
like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following quinque.
They're saying "longtitude," and either it's flapped like an American, which
in your quaint British way you interpret as /d/, or else it's voiced because
of the surrounding voiced segments. I wouldn't be surprised if the other one
is [l&dituwd].

[Will Parsons]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:51:30 PM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:1fa776c8-a870-4330...@googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:33:39 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>> >> I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the
>> >> other
>> >> hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is nearly
>> >> always
>> >> pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound
>> >> after
>> >> the "g", which I've never understood).
>> >
>> >(Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)
>>
>> To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from older
>> speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not ['lA.NgdIt,ju:d], which
>> is what my post above probably suggested. No idea where the [d] came from
>> though.
>
> That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude." It's
> like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following quinque.

I think you've got that backwards - if anything, quinque instead of
*pinque because of the preceding quattuor (maybe).

--
Will

[Oliver Cromm]

* Mark Brader:

> Ramapriya D.:
>>>> I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
>>>> and hard G. You?
>
> Guy Barry:
>>> Soft G for me.
>
> Agreed; that's the only way I've heard it. I would have thought that
> if another pronunciation was used, an "ng" sound would be more likely
> than a hard G.
>
> Ramapriya D:
>> Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
>> word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)
>
> There, see? That's an "ng", not a hard G. Hard G is with "ge" as in "get".

Before I learned that "longevity" denies its ancestor "long", I
would have said it with [...Ng...], ng followed by hard g, like
"longer".

--
The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose
from; furthermore, if you do not like any of them, you can just
wait for next year's model.
Andrew Tanenbaum, _Computer Networks_ (1981), p. 168.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Jerry Friedman:

Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
for British. Oxford has it the other way round.

--
Bug:
An elusive creature living in a program that makes it incorrect.
The activity of "debugging," or removing bugs from a program, ends
when people get tired of doing it, not when the bugs are removed.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Sounds right. But regressive assimilation is more usual!

[James Hogg]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:51:30 PM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in message
>> news:1fa776c8-a870-4330...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:33:39 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>> I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the
>>>> other
>>>> hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is nearly
>>>> always
>>>> pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound
>>>> after
>>>> the "g", which I've never understood).
>>> (Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)
>> To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from older
>> speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not ['lA.NgdIt,ju:d], which
>> is what my post above probably suggested. No idea where the [d] came from
>> though.
>
> That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude." It's
> like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following quinque.

Or Latin has quinque instead of pinque because of the preceding
quattuor. The reconstructed IE forms are kwetwer and penkwe.

> They're saying "longtitude," and either it's flapped like an American, which
> in your quaint British way you interpret as /d/, or else it's voiced because
> of the surrounding voiced segments. I wouldn't be surprised if the other one
> is [l&dituwd].

--
James

[Robert Bannister]

On 7/04/2015 6:33 pm, Guy Barry wrote:
> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
> news:2db09d10-9d63-4957...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:14:58 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
>>> news:7481fb23-9f8d-41c8...@googlegroups.com...
>>> >
>>> >I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a
>>> soft
>>> >and hard G. You?
>>>
>>> Soft G for me.
>
>> Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
>> word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)
>
> I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the
> other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is
> nearly always pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a
> redundant "d" sound after the "g", which I've never understood).
>

I think I learnt the word early on as "long-ditude" and it is very hard
to get rid of it. I also have to think hard to remember the spelling if
I write "longitude".

--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Peter Moylan]

On 08/04/15 02:36, Mark Brader wrote:
> "Guy Barry":
>> On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g")
>
> Not really; hard G is also common before I. Consider "gift", "gig",
> "gird", "girl", "git", "give", and all the "gim-" words.

The "rule" that G is softened before E or I comes from late Latin. It
was never a rule for English, but we've been fooled into thinking it is
because of all the English words imported from French.

Anglo-Saxon did soften C before I, apparently independently of Latin,
but Norman scribes messed that up by changing the spelling of such a "c"
to "ch".

[Robert Bannister]

I'm puzzled by your "g" in ['lA.NgIt,ju:d]. I think I have heard it that
way, but (mostly by the people who don't insert d) I hear it as
/'lA.NItju:d/.

[Robert Bannister]

On 8/04/2015 4:55 am, Oliver Cromm wrote:
> * Jerry Friedman:
>
>> On 4/7/15 6:47 AM, Ramapriya D wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:33:39 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard. On the other
>>>> hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g") is nearly always
>>>> pronounced with a hard "g" (sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound after
>>>> the "g", which I've never understood).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Guy Barry
>>>
>>>
>>> I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft 'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)
>>
>> Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
>> doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.
>
> Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
> for British. Oxford has it the other way round.
>

That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g. I haven't often
heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
is no "g" sound in "long".

[Ramapriya D]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:32:34 PM UTC+4, Mark Brader wrote:
> Ramapriya D.:
> >>> I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
> >>> and hard G. You?
>
> Guy Barry:
> >> Soft G for me.
>
> Agreed; that's the only way I've heard it. I would have thought that
> if another pronunciation was used, an "ng" sound would be more likely
> than a hard G.
>
> Ramapriya D:
> > Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
> > word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)
>
> There, see? That's an "ng", not a hard G. Hard G is with "ge" as in "get".

To amply clarify, by 'soft g', I meant a J-type pronunciation of G, e.g. germ, gerund, etc. I've heard both 'lonJevity' and 'longevity' but never 'longitude', always 'lonJitude'!

Ramapriya

[John Dawkins]

In article <cojbf5...@mid.individual.net>,

All those "g"s are in Long Island.
--
J.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Robert Bannister:

> On 8/04/2015 4:55 am, Oliver Cromm wrote:
>> * Jerry Friedman:
>>
>>> On 4/7/15 6:47 AM, Ramapriya D wrote:

>>>> I've *never* yet heard 'longitude' pronounced with a soft
>>>> 'g'! What world am I living in, I wonder? :)
>>>
>>> Not America. I occasionally hear "longitude" with a hard "g", but AHD
>>> doesn't mention it and M-W calls it British.
>>
>> Collins and Cambridge regard soft g the primary pronunciation even
>> for British. Oxford has it the other way round.
>>
> That is strange. I can't say I've ever heard a soft g.

Forvo speakers all agree on soft g, 2 US 1 UK.

> I haven't often
> heard a hard g either. Unless you come from the north of England, there
> is no "g" sound in "long".

Not in "long", sure, but "longer" or "longitude" without one? No
dictionary I checked suggests that variant.

--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?

[James Hogg]

And Old English did soften G before front vowels, but not with the same
result as in French. That's where we get some of our words beginning
with Y, as you see if you compare yard, yarn, yellow, yield with German
Garten, Garn, gelb, gelten.

--
James

[Peter Moylan]

The [Ng] version is the one I've always used. I don't think I've ever
heard it with a bare [N].

[Steve Hayes]

I tried pronouncing it with a sif g, and found it difficult because of
the duplicateed consonants:

londjichewed,

[Adam Funk]

Well, they're both /f/ or similar in Germanic languages. How does the
Greek "tessera" tie in?

> Sounds right. But regressive assimilation is more usual!

What do you mean by "regressive" --- just in reverse numerical order?


--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]

[Guy Barry]

"Adam Funk" wrote in message news:jq8fvbx...@news.ducksburg.com...

>
>On 2015-04-07, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 4:40:38 PM UTC-4, Will Parsons wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> > On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:51:30 PM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:
>
>>> >> To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from older
>>> >> speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not
>>> >> ['lA.NgdIt,ju:d], which
>>> >> is what my post above probably suggested. No idea where the [d] came
>>> >> from
>>> >> though.
>>> >
>>> > That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude."
>>> > It's
>>> > like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following
>>> > quinque.
>>>
>>> I think you've got that backwards - if anything, quinque instead of
>>> *pinque because of the preceding quattuor (maybe).

I was under the impression that the "qu" at the start of "quinque" came
about by assimilation to the "qu" in the second syllable, not the "qu" of
"quattuor". But I can't find anything to back this up.

>Well, they're both /f/ or similar in Germanic languages. How does the
>Greek "tessera" tie in?

It is odd that in so many Indo-European languages not only the words for
"four" and "five", but also the words for "six" and "seven", begin with the
same phoneme. Pattern or just coincidence?

--
Guy Barry

[Guy Barry]

"Guy Barry" wrote in message news:Jp7Vw.122407$X95....@fx10.am4...

>It is odd that in so many Indo-European languages not only the words for
>"four" and "five", but also the words for "six" and "seven", begin with the
>same phoneme. Pattern or just coincidence?

I've just remembered the existence of the following useful Wikipedia page
where you can judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_numbers_in_various_languages#Indo-European_languages

--
Guy Barry

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

I have heard those occasionally (in BrE).

I have also heard one or two people use "longditude" with no "g", hard
or soft.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[CDB]

On 07/04/2015 4:16 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Guy Barry wrote:

>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>>> Guy Barry wrote:

>>>> I've heard it that way, but I think soft "g" is more standard.
>>>> On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a
>>>> soft "g") is nearly always pronounced with a hard "g"
>>>> (sometimes also with a redundant "d" sound after the "g", which
>>>> I've never understood).

>>> (Longg-ditude?) Not around here, it isn't. (Either feature.)

>> To clarify, I normally hear ['lA.NgIt,ju:d], but (mostly from
>> older speakers) I occasionally hear ['lA.NdIt,ju:d] - not
>> ['lA.NgdIt,ju:d], which is what my post above probably suggested.
>> No idea where the [d] came from though.

This older speaker says ['lAndZI,tjud], except that the vowel part of
the last syllable is not [ju] but a kind of fronted, half-rounded
(tense?) [u] that I don't have a symbol for.

It seems to me there has been a tendency during my lifetime to harden
the [dZ] before front vowels in Latinate words to [g], perhaps beginning
with with Greek words -- one of the first I remember hearing was
"guynecology", and "giga" is a lost cause, even though we still say
[dZaIg&ntIk] -- and one reason may be that some words were borrowed
directly (or merely known to be derived) from Greek and the borrower (or
user) didn't see any reason to insist on historical Latin sound-changes.

> That one's not so hard to explain: pattern pressure from "latitude."
> It's like why Latin has quattuor instead of pattuor -- the following
> quinque. They're saying "longtitude," and either it's flapped like an
> American, which in your quaint British way you interpret as /d/, or
> else it's voiced because of the surrounding voiced segments. I
> wouldn't be surprised if the other one is [l&dituwd].

I looked it up, because that account doesn't explain English "f" in
"four" and "five".

The online etymological dictionary says it's the other way around,
deriving "quattuor" from IE "*qwetwer" and "quinque" from "*penkwe",
which makes sense of the difference between Greek "tettara" and "pente".
So it's "quattuor" that has influenced "quinque" -- as you might
expect, given the most usual order of recitation.

The article says the reason for the English "f" in both words is
unclear. Damn. Maybe they counted backwards. "The number of thy
counting shall be four. See that ye count not "six, five, whore, oh damn."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=five&searchmode=none

I see that the discussion has already taken place. Tant pis.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 5:30:07 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2015-04-07, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Sounds right. But regressive assimilation is more usual!
>
> What do you mean by "regressive" --- just in reverse numerical order?

"Regressive assimilation" means that something earlier in the utterance
changes to resemble something later in the utterance, because your speech
organs are getting into position to produce what's coming up, as opposed
to staying in their former configuration too long.

The most familiar example is German Umlaut: Fuss / Fuesse, where the fronting
of the first vowel is an anticipation of the fronter vowel in the next syllable.

In English we have rampant palatalization, where alveolar obstruents get
palatalized before palatal consonants or vowels. adopt / adoption, fuse /
fusion.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Peter Duncanson [BrE]:

When there's a d, for whatever reason, I wouldn't expect a g, hard
or soft. The hard g would be almost impractical.

--
Failover worked - the system failed, then it was over.
(freely translated from a remark by Dietz Proepper
in de.alt.sysadmin.recovery)

[Oliver Cromm]

* Peter Moylan:

> On 08/04/15 02:36, Mark Brader wrote:
>> "Guy Barry":
>>> On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g")
>>
>> Not really; hard G is also common before I. Consider "gift", "gig",
>> "gird", "girl", "git", "give", and all the "gim-" words.
>
> The "rule" that G is softened before E or I comes from late Latin. It
> was never a rule for English, but we've been fooled into thinking it is
> because of all the English words imported from French.

And that's why it applies to longitude, which looks Latin and came
to English via French.

--
A chrysanthemum by any other name would be easier to spell.
Peter Moylan in alt.usage.english

[James Silverton]

The "long dit" pronunciation is quite common. I caught myself using it.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Ogden Nash would beg to differ.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Peter T. Daniels:

He wouldn't have to, not being Ongden Nash.

--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106

[Peter Moylan]

On 09/04/15 03:36, Oliver Cromm wrote:
> * Peter Moylan:
>
>> On 08/04/15 02:36, Mark Brader wrote:
>>> "Guy Barry":
>>>> On the other hand, "longitude" (whose spelling also suggests a soft "g")
>>>
>>> Not really; hard G is also common before I. Consider "gift", "gig",
>>> "gird", "girl", "git", "give", and all the "gim-" words.
>>
>> The "rule" that G is softened before E or I comes from late Latin. It
>> was never a rule for English, but we've been fooled into thinking it is
>> because of all the English words imported from French.
>
> And that's why it applies to longitude, which looks Latin and came
> to English via French.

But did it? I was under the impression that both French and English got
it directly from Latin, via independent paths.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

That is the opinon of the OED:

Etymology: < Latin longitudo, < longus long adj.1 Compare French
longitude.

[Adam Funk]

OK, that's what I thought it normally meant. The 4--5 vs 5--4 thing
confused the issue for me.


--
I was born, lucky me, in a land that I love.
Though I'm poor, I am free.
When I grow I shall fight; for this land I shall die.
May the sun never set. --- The Kinks

[Oliver Cromm]

* Peter Duncanson [BrE]:

I see. I somehow managed to read the etymology first in two
dictionaries that mentioned French, but all others seem to be on
"your" side.

Then the question is how gi/ge was treated in direct borrowings
from Latin around that time (late 14c according to etymonline).

--
XML combines all the inefficiency of text-based formats with most
of the unreadability of binary formats.
Oren Tirosh, comp.lang.python

[Peter Moylan]

On 07/04/15 20:15, Ramapriya D wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:14:58 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
>> news:7481fb23-9f8d-41c8...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
>>> and hard G. You?
>>
>> Soft G for me.

> Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
different consonant.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

JE SUIS CHARLIE

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 17:52:46 +1000, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org>
wrote:

>On 07/04/15 20:15, Ramapriya D wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:14:58 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
>>> news:7481fb23-9f8d-41c8...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
>>>> and hard G. You?
>>>
>>> Soft G for me.
>
>> Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)
>
>There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
>"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
>different consonant.

There is in some accents in England.

The book _Dialects_ by Peter Trudgill says:

"LONG AS LONG OR LONGG
In most dialects of English, in the British Isles and overseas, the g in
words such as long is nor pronounced anymore, and winger and finger do
not rhyme. In one area of England, however, the original pronunciation
is still used - the g is pronounced so that the hard g of give can be
heard at the end of words like long and thing. This area includes
Liverpool, Manchester, Chester, Derby and Birmingham. It covers
Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Staffordshire, West Midlands
(with neighbouring areas of Warwickshire and Worcestershire) Northern
Shropshire and Derbyshire."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=irqHAgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA38&ots=Z25D0NtN2d&dq=hard%20g%20in%20%22long%22%20dialect&pg=PA38#v=onepage&q=hard%20g%20in%20%22long%22%20dialect&f=false
or
http://tinyurl.com/q87q4bs

In my experience that hard-g is not universal in those areas.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Also Long Island, New York (east of New York City), giving rise to the
jocular orthography <Long Guyland>.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <mgajqn$j2v$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org> wrote:

>There is no hard G in "long".

There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
English midlands.

-- Richard

[Richard Yates]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:44:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 17:52:46 +1000, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On 07/04/15 20:15, Ramapriya D wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:14:58 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
>>>> news:7481fb23-9f8d-41c8...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
>>>>> and hard G. You?
>>>>
>>>> Soft G for me.
>>
>>> Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)
>>
>>There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
>>"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
>>different consonant.
>
>There is in some accents in England.

And the US. Notably that of many inhabitants of Long Island, aha
"Long-Gisland."

[Tony Cooper]

There are some people who put a slight "uh" after an ending "g":
"long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 11:05:38 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates
> <ric...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 13:44:40 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> ><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >>On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 17:52:46 +1000, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org>
> >>wrote:

> >>>There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
> >>>"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
> >>>different consonant.
> >>
> >>There is in some accents in England.
> >
> >And the US. Notably that of many inhabitants of Long Island, aha
> >"Long-Gisland."

Normally, as I said an hour earlier, spelled "Long Guyland." This is what
Labov calls a "marker," i.e. a specific dialect peculiarity that's within
the consciousness of both the dialect's speakers and their neighbors. They
probably also say "long [g]afternoon" but no one would notice.

> There are some people who put a slight "uh" after an ending "g":
> "long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
> wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
two -[N#] words?

[Jerry Friedman]

Also Pittsburgh, at least for some older people. (I haven't been there
for decades. Rich Ulrich might comment.)

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Young]

On 11 Apr 2015 "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 11:05:38 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates

[snip]

>> There are some people who put a slight "uh" after an ending "g":
>> "long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
>> wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".

> Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
> two -[N#] words?

In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
we're discussed this before.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Re)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 1:54:44 PM UTC-4, Peter Young wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2015 "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 11:05:38 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates
>
> [snip]
>
> >> There are some people who put a slight "uh" after an ending "g":
> >> "long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
> >> wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".
>
> > Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
> > two -[N#] words?
>
> In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
> we're discussed this before.

When was Tony there?

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:52:50 +0100, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 11 Apr 2015 "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 11:05:38 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates
>
>[snip]
>
>>> There are some people who put a slight "uh" after an ending "g":
>>> "long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
>>> wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".
>
>> Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
>> two -[N#] words?
>
>In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
>we're discussed this before.

And in Indianapolis, Indiana and St Petersburg, Florida. My
grandmother was an uh-adder. While she isn't the only one that I've
heard it from, it was her uhs that made me notice it.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 1:54:44 PM UTC-4, Peter Young wrote:
>> On 11 Apr 2015 "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 11:05:38 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 07:58:48 -0700, Richard Yates
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> There are some people who put a slight "uh" after an ending "g":
>> >> "long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
>> >> wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".
>>
>> > Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
>> > two -[N#] words?
>>
>> In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
>> we're discussed this before.
>
>When was Tony there?

As a tourist, I've never paid that much attention to what area I was
in regarding descriptions like "North Midlands". However,
cross-checking by cities, I have been in Chester, Cheshire and other
cities in the North Midlands. The Chester Cathedral is magnificent.

As to the North of England, I believe Yorkshire counts and I've been
to several cities in Yorkshire. We were a week in York and made
several day-trips from there. Looking at a map, it seems that
Middlesbrough is the city furthest north that I remember being in.

Your question, though, contributes nothing to the subject. As so many
of yours.

[Rich Ulrich]

Yes, I have heard Long-Gisland in Pittsburgh, but
I can't speak about today's younger Pittsburghers.

These days, I hear native Pittsburghers mainly on
news broadcasts, and Long Island is rarely in our news.

Years ago, I tuned out my local accent-awareness; but
I think that I will try to notice those details for a while.
I imagine that there is less than there used to be.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Peter Young]

No eye deer, but he asked *where people*, which I imagine includes me,
heard this pronunciation, so I told him.

[Peter T. Daniels]

And while you were there, did you hear people appending [g]s and then shwas
to words ending in [N]?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 4:49:46 PM UTC-4, Peter Young wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2015 "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 1:54:44 PM UTC-4, Peter Young wrote:
> >> On 11 Apr 2015 "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 11:05:38 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >>>> There are some people who put a slight "uh" after an ending "g":
> >>>> "long-uh". They seem to do it with short-sounding words only. It
> >>>> wouldn't be hear with "expiring", but would be "going".
> >>> Where, exactly, have you heard people pronounce a [g] at the end of those
> >>> two -[N#] words?
> >> In large areas of the North Midlands and North of England. I think
> >> we're discussed this before.
> > When was Tony there?
>
> No eye deer, but he asked *where people*, which I imagine includes me,
> heard this pronunciation, so I told him.

No, I said to Tony, "Where, exactly, did you hear ..." what he described
"some people" as doing.

[Janet]

In article <c89e6eb4-5b84-4db3...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

Does anyone need to be in England to hear English accents?

Florida is a very popular holiday destination for people living in

the North Midlands and North of England.

Janet

[Tony Cooper]

It really doesn't make any difference where I heard people do it or
where those people are from. Some people do add the "uh" to some
final "g"s. PTD is just being his usual obstreperous self. I think
he posts things like this hoping that someone will pay attention to
him.

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

T*ny C**per wrote:
>
> PTD is just being his usual obstreperous self. I think he posts
> things like this hoping that someone will pay attention to him.
>

PeteY is a lonesome *attention-whore*.

--
Reinhold {Rey} Aman

[Peter T. Daniels]

It's a long way from "there are people" to "North Midlands and North of England" and Long Island, New York (where, however, the shwa is not appended,
which is what his original claim was). Are you vouching for the shwa, or only
for the velar stop after the nasal?

[Bob Martin]

in 2177303 20150411 134440 "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 17:52:46 +1000, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On 07/04/15 20:15, Ramapriya D wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:14:58 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
>>>> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
>>>> news:7481fb23-9f8d-41c8...@googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
>>>>> and hard G. You?
>>>>
>>>> Soft G for me.
>>
>>> Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the word with a hard G, i.e. '
>long' as in, well, 'long' :)
>>
>>There is no hard G in "long". For that matter, there is no soft G in
>>"long". Instead it has "ng" ([N] in ASCII IPA), which is a totally
>>different consonant.
>
>There is in some accents in England.

Also "thing" - pronounced as thingg or even think (and even commoner is somethink).

[David Kleinecke]

Do you mean a glottal stop?

[Oliver Cromm]

* Stefan Ram:

> A typical pronunciation mistake of Germans reportedly is
> /'INlIS/ instead /'INglIS/ for »English«. If that is true,
> than it would be funny that Germans are taught years of
> English at school, but aren't taught the proper pronunciation
> of even the name of the language they learn!

While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
possible, according to Merriam-Webster.

--
"Bother", said the Borg, as they assimilated Pooh.

[Robert Bannister]

Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking say it without the G
so one wonders where M-W's information came from.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia

[Robert Bannister]

On 15/04/2015 7:26 am, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 15/04/2015 12:47 am, Oliver Cromm wrote:
>> * Stefan Ram:
>>
>>> ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>>>> In article <mgajqn$j2v$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org> wrote:
>>>>> There is no hard G in "long".
>>>> There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
>>>> English midlands.
>>>
>>> A typical pronunciation mistake of Germans reportedly is
>>> /'INlIS/ instead /'INglIS/ for »English«. If that is true,
>>> than it would be funny that Germans are taught years of
>>> English at school, but aren't taught the proper pronunciation
>>> of even the name of the language they learn!
>>
>> While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
>> possible, according to Merriam-Webster.
>>
>
> Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking

********
speaker

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 7:46:03 PM UTC-4, Stefan Ram wrote:

> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
> >Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking say it without the G
> >so one wonders where M-W's information came from.
>

> In England, only /'INglIS/ is correct, while in America
> also /'INlIS/ is possible.

Where? What leads you to say that?

> The English that the German pupils learn in the usual
> public schools is supposed to be British English, so
> they should learn to say /'InglIS/.
>
> And the Germans often say /lVndn/ instead of /lVnd@n/.
>
> Both German and English rules allow the elision of the Schwa
> within an /@n/ ending. But /only the English rules/ have an
> exception, that forbids the elision in the case #@N, where #
> is CC, N or [l] (where C is a consonant and N is a nasal).

I don't know what you're talking about. That's not true of AmE, and ISTM
that BrE elides even more unstressed vowels than we do.

> Thus, the following Schwas cannot be omitted, but are often
> omitted by German speakers: German ['dZE:m@n], London
> ['lVnd@n], Lisbon ['lIzb@n], talent ['tæ:l@nt].
>
> In German, the German word »landen« indeed can correctly
> be pronounced either ['land@n] or ['landn].

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 11:43:19 PM UTC-4, Stefan Ram wrote:

> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> >Thus, the following Schwas cannot be omitted, but are often
> >omitted by German speakers: German ['dZE:m@n], London
> >['lVnd@n], Lisbon ['lIzb@n], talent ['tæ:l@nt].
>

> Two other words where German's like to elide a Schwa-like
> sound compared to British English are:
>
> Rock'n'Roll [,rAk@n'r@Ul] (British English pronunciation)
> chicken ['tSIkIn] (British English pronunciation)
>
> In Germany, one might hear /'rOkn'ro:l/ and /'tSIkn/.

You invalidate your point by using [phonetic] transcription for BrE and
/phonemic/ transcription for the German variety.

I wonder what exactly it is you claim is different between [@n] and
syllabic [n|] (n with a vertical stroke beneath).

> Im American English, the Schwa in ['rAk@n'roUl] is weaker
> than in British English, but it's still there, and chicken
> becomes ['tSIk@n] with a Schwa in place of an [I].

That's the opposite of what you claimed yesterday.

> (The two [A] above are actually two different sounds, but
> there are only so many A symbols in ASCII. The British [A]
> is rounded.)

And there is a symbol for the difference in Kirshenbaum ASCII IPA.

> In fact, I myself made or make the error to pronounce »question«
> as ['kwEstSn] and then I wondered why it's so difficult to
> pronounce (the consonant cluster [stSn]) and still sounded odd!
> But I should say ['kwEst.S@n]. But there still is the
> consonant cluster [stS] in it, and I am afraid that I do
> yet have found the best way to pronounce this, because I am
> not sure whether my pronunciation of this word is correct.

In English, the affricate [c] is not a sequence of [t] and [S]. The
syllabification is ['kwEs.cn].

The late Egyptologist Klaus Baer, born in Switzerland, had no trace of a
German accent in his English -- except that he always pronounced "Egyptian"
as "egypt-shn" with a distinct [t], instead of the normal [i'jIp.Sn].

[Oliver Cromm]

* Stefan Ram:

> Two other words where German's like to elide a Schwa-like
> sound compared to British English are:
>
> Rock'n'Roll [,rAk@n'r@Ul] (British English pronunciation)
> chicken ['tSIkIn] (British English pronunciation)
>
> In Germany, one might hear /'rOkn'ro:l/ and /'tSIkn/.
>

> Im American English, the Schwa in ['rAk@n'roUl] is weaker
> than in British English, but it's still there, and chicken
> becomes ['tSIk@n] with a Schwa in place of an [I].

I'm afraid each of your examples needs to be discussed separately.

The German sequence [k@n] at the end of a word, when reduced,
comes out as (close to) [kN] in my speech. I would consider it a
clear German accent if I said [rAkNroUl] or [tSikN]. However, when
I just reduce the schwa, but take care to leave the [n] a clear
[n], I believe the [kn] comes out similar to mooncow's (UK
speaker!) pronunciation at
<http://de.forvo.com/word/rock_and_roll/#en> or that of JessicaMS
at <http://de.forvo.com/word/chicken/#en>.

--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?

[Oliver Cromm]

* Stefan Ram:

> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
>>Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking say it without the G
>>so one wonders where M-W's information came from.
>

> In England, only /'INglIS/ is correct, while in America
> also /'INlIS/ is possible.
>

> The English that the German pupils learn in the usual
> public schools is supposed to be British English, so
> they should learn to say /'InglIS/.

Having the general student population learn one consistent native
accent is a very high goal. If their pronunciation has no obvious
foreign accent, that would already be a high achievement, one
which most people cannot reach. A realistic goal, in my opinion,
is to get rid of pronunciations that make the English hard to
understand or easy to misunderstand.

I was lucky that I had an almost-native speaker for an English
teacher in school for a few months, at least. Unfortunately, this
is rare. Even my teacher did not have the qualifications to teach
in a German school, so a special arrangement had to be made.

She had been living in the US for a long time, since her teenage
years, IIRC. Obviously, she had an American accent. Getting mixed
up between British and American was a small price to pay, in my
opinion, for the plus side of getting to hear spontaneous
idiomatic English, something that non-native teachers can't always
deliver.

> And the Germans often say /lVndn/ instead of /lVnd@n/.

That might happen to me, too.

> Both German and English rules allow the elision of the Schwa
> within an /@n/ ending. But /only the English rules/ have an
> exception, that forbids the elision in the case #@N, where #
> is CC, N or [l] (where C is a consonant and N is a nasal).
>

> Thus, the following Schwas cannot be omitted, but are often
> omitted by German speakers: German ['dZE:m@n], London

> ['lVnd@n], Lisbon ['lIzb@n], talent ['tć:l@nt].

I find it technically difficult to say [mn]. When schwa-elision
takes place, in my speech, m and n fuse: kommen [kom@n] -> [kom].
The tongue still makes a movement toward the [n] position, but
since I don't open my mouth, I believe it can't be heard as such.
I will not do this when speaking English.

For "Lisbon" and "talent", I will probably not elide the schwa,
because I'm guided by native speakers' pronunciation with a clear
second syllable that I remember, but I'm not aware of a rule like
the one you postulate. Do you have a source, or did you come up
with it yourself?

--
The Eskimoes had fifty-two names for snow because it was
important to them, there ought to be as many for love.
-- Margaret Atwood, Surfacing (novel), p.106

[Oliver Cromm]

* Robert Bannister:

> On 15/04/2015 12:47 am, Oliver Cromm wrote:
>> * Stefan Ram:
>>
>>> ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>>>> In article <mgajqn$j2v$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org> wrote:
>>>>> There is no hard G in "long".
>>>> There was in the English of my first school teacher. This was in the
>>>> English midlands.
>>>
>>> A typical pronunciation mistake of Germans reportedly is
>>> /'INlIS/ instead /'INglIS/ for »English«. If that is true,
>>> than it would be funny that Germans are taught years of
>>> English at school, but aren't taught the proper pronunciation
>>> of even the name of the language they learn!
>>
>> While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
>> possible, according to Merriam-Webster.
>

> Interesting. I have never heard a native [speaker] say it without the G

> so one wonders where M-W's information came from.

Well, shouldn't it come from examples of (AmE) speakers?

At <http://de.forvo.com/word/english/#en>, I cannot detect a [g]
in the pronunciations of Matt3799 and sugardaddy. A few others
have very weak [g], where I have to listen twice to be sure
whether it's there or not. Most of the British speakers indeed
have a strong [g]. In the example from englishdoyoueven (from New
Zealand), the [N] and the [g] appear fused into one, slightly
alien (to me) consonant.

--
... man muss oft schon Wissenschaft infrage stellen bei den Wirt-
schaftsmenschen [...] das Denken wird häufig blockiert von einem
ideologischen Ãœberbau [...] Es ist halt in vielen Teilen eher
eine Religion als eine Wissenschaft. -- Heiner Flassbeck

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at 1:23:31 PM UTC-4, Oliver Cromm wrote:
> * Stefan Ram:
>
> > Two other words where German's like to elide a Schwa-like
> > sound compared to British English are:
> >
> > Rock'n'Roll [,rAk@n'r@Ul] (British English pronunciation)
> > chicken ['tSIkIn] (British English pronunciation)
> >
> > In Germany, one might hear /'rOkn'ro:l/ and /'tSIkn/.
> >
> > Im American English, the Schwa in ['rAk@n'roUl] is weaker
> > than in British English, but it's still there, and chicken
> > becomes ['tSIk@n] with a Schwa in place of an [I].
>
> I'm afraid each of your examples needs to be discussed separately.
>
> The German sequence [k@n] at the end of a word, when reduced,
> comes out as (close to) [kN] in my speech. I would consider it a
> clear German accent if I said [rAkNroUl] or [tSikN].

That might come across as a hypercorrection -- as if you'd been told so
often "not to drop the g" in e.g. "Singin' in the rain" that whenever
you encountered a final n you were trying to "give it a g."

> However, when
> I just reduce the schwa, but take care to leave the [n] a clear
> [n], I believe the [kn] comes out similar to mooncow's (UK
> speaker!) pronunciation at
> <http://de.forvo.com/word/rock_and_roll/#en> or that of JessicaMS
> at <http://de.forvo.com/word/chicken/#en>.

That should be entirely normal. It would be strange, no, to so perfectly
time the voice onset and the velic opening that a bit of non-nasalized vowel
could creep in between the k-closure and the n-opening.

[Robert Bannister]

On 15/04/2015 7:45 am, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:

>> Interesting. I have never heard a native speaking say it without the G
>> so one wonders where M-W's information came from.
>

> In England, only /'INglIS/ is correct, while in America
> also /'INlIS/ is possible.
>
> The English that the German pupils learn in the usual
> public schools is supposed to be British English, so
> they should learn to say /'InglIS/.
>

> And the Germans often say /lVndn/ instead of /lVnd@n/.

I'm sure many of the inhabitants say /lVn?n/ (is ? right for an ASCII
IPA glottal stop?) - I doubt I'd notice the missing schwa, but I would
very much notice a missing G.

[Robert Bannister]

I hear a clear G from sugardaddy. Matt3799 seems to be using a sort of
strangled velar stop, similar to but not the same as glottal stop.

[Oliver Cromm]

* Robert Bannister:

> On 16/04/2015 1:23 am, Oliver Cromm wrote:
>> * Robert Bannister:
>>
>>> On 15/04/2015 12:47 am, Oliver Cromm wrote:
>>>> * Stefan Ram:
>>>>

>>>>> A typical pronunciation mistake of Germans reportedly is

>>>>> /'INlIS/ instead /'INglIS/ for »English«. [...]

>>>>
>>>> While the pronunciation with a [g] is more common, both are
>>>> possible, according to Merriam-Webster.
>>>
>>> Interesting. I have never heard a native [speaker] say it without the G
>>> so one wonders where M-W's information came from.
>>
>> Well, shouldn't it come from examples of (AmE) speakers?
>>
>> At <http://de.forvo.com/word/english/#en>, I cannot detect a [g]
>> in the pronunciations of Matt3799 and sugardaddy. A few others
>> have very weak [g], where I have to listen twice to be sure
>> whether it's there or not. Most of the British speakers indeed
>> have a strong [g]. In the example from englishdoyoueven (from New
>> Zealand), the [N] and the [g] appear fused into one, slightly
>> alien (to me) consonant.
>>
> I hear a clear G from sugardaddy.

I tried again, I hear "maybe a hint of G, unless I'm imagining it"
after listening the fourth time. If that is a clear G to you, I'll
stop worrying about it, because I wouldn't know the difference.

[Dr Nick]

Ramapriya D <d.ram...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 12:14:58 PM UTC+4, Guy Barry wrote:
>> "Ramapriya D" wrote in message
>> news:7481fb23-9f8d-41c8...@googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >I've heard an equal number of people pronouncing 'longevity' with a soft
>> >and hard G. You?
>>
>> Soft G for me.
>
> Interesting. Just today, an Englishman office colleague pronounced the
> word with a hard G, i.e. 'long' as in, well, 'long' :)

I suspect (and looking at this thread it's a very strong suspicion) I'd
pronounce it with a hard 'g' but if someone mentioned it I'd remember
that it was wrong.

It's not a word I come across very often so the default spelling
pronunciation circuit beats the slow memory lookup with the response.