--- In phoNet@yahoogroups.com
, "Jean-Paul G. POTET" <potetjp@w...>
> "Well, I think the man was just being hyperexplicit, trying to
> and distinctly and using what is sometimes known as 'foreigner
> GASIOROWSKI, POLAND
> I agree with you. This can't have been the normal way he would have
> pronounced <Pancras>. He was triggered into it by my friend's wrong
> Jean-Paul G. POTET, FRANCE
Perhaps he said ["pan'krVs]. That is what I would say. The
realisation of the /n/ would vary, sometimes yielding /N/. I would
say the opposition is close to being neutralised there. Perhaps I
can't talk properly. ["paNkr&s] is possible, but does not feel
right. I can persuade myself that I sometime say [In_Nk] for 'ink' -
coarticulated [n] and [N]? It sounds peculiar, but I can feel an
inconsistent postalveolar contact when I say 'ink'. May be it wan't
just naivety that made me doubtful of the analysis [INk] when I was
at junior school. I found the corresponding phonetic spelling hard
to accept. On the other hand, I can persuade myself that the
disyllabic pronunciation of 'hankerer' is [haNkr&]. There is
something dental about the nasal of 'hanker'.
You may wonder why I was doing phonetic analysis at junior school.
I was trying to understand the initial teaching alphabet (i.t.a.)
which the infants were using. I had come from a different school,
which didn't use it.