hello!
could you help me with this: is the g of ing in present continuous pronounced or not such as " i'm leaving now"?
could you help me with this: is the g of ing in present continuous pronounced or not such as " i'm leaving now"?
pronunciation of "ing"- /g/
What help do you need? It's pronounced just as it is pronounced in other occurrences of -ing.
Native speakers will often simplify the pronunciation of -ing to sound like -een or -in in casual and/or rapid speech. The -ing sound is inherently more difficult to produce and so even the natives tend to simplify it in cases where doing so does not interfere with comprehension (which includes most cases).
Native speakers will often simplify the pronunciation of -ing to sound like -een or -in in casual and/or rapid speech. The -ing sound is inherently more difficult to produce and so even the natives tend to simplify it in cases where doing so does not interfere with comprehension (which includes most cases).
And how it's pronounced in (this &) other occurrences is not (usually) /g/. There are some dialects in which these <ng>s are pronounced /ng/ but the usual pronounciation of such an <ng> is /N/. In other words, you don't speak of pronouncing the <g> but speak of pronouncing the <ng> together, as a digraph (unless, of course, you're refering to those dialects I'd mentioned). Note, of course, <ng> can also be pronounced <Ng> as in "finger" & "English" or <ndZ> as in "change" & "danger".
Mxsmanic, actually, the reason for such pronunciations of <ing> are *not* due to such being "easier", but rather because /In/ (in some dialects /in/) is a survival from the Old English present participle ending <ende> (c.f. German <end>, Danish <ende>). Old English <ende> happened to get reduced during the Middle English period to /In/, which later got confused with the gerund ending /IN/, and in the formal language was replaced by /IN/ altogether, but in many dialects was still retained as a distinct form alongside /IN/. Consequently, the pronunciation /In/ for the suffix for present participles became limited to informal language, not due to it being "easy" at all, but rather because the formal language is actually more progressive than many dialects, in this manner, which actually preserve this particular form that is no longer present in the formal language.
I'm certain that ease of pronunciation is a factor, although I'm sure Travis' point is valid to some extent as well. Just try to pronounce the three sounds and you'll immediately perceive that -ing is the most difficult of the three. That -ing requires articulatory movements that the others don't.
The big things that show that -/In/ is not simply an "easier" phonological variant of -/IN/ are that in many dialects which do have -/In/:
1. Words which end in /IN/ where /IN/ is not a separate morpheme never use /In/ ints place
2. /In/ is only found in present participles, and never in gerunds, which only use /IN/
For example, both are the case in my dialect, and even if the second is not the case, the first usually is. While some dialects may possibly analogize the use of -/In/ in present participles to gerunds as well, the existance of dialects in which -/In/ is limited to only present participles clearly helps give credence to that it is effectively a present participle suffix which happened to not get fully merged with the gerund suffix -/IN/, rather than simply an "easier" version of -/IN/.
1. Words which end in /IN/ where /IN/ is not a separate morpheme never use /In/ ints place
2. /In/ is only found in present participles, and never in gerunds, which only use /IN/
For example, both are the case in my dialect, and even if the second is not the case, the first usually is. While some dialects may possibly analogize the use of -/In/ in present participles to gerunds as well, the existance of dialects in which -/In/ is limited to only present participles clearly helps give credence to that it is effectively a present participle suffix which happened to not get fully merged with the gerund suffix -/IN/, rather than simply an "easier" version of -/IN/.
<<1. Words which end in /IN/ where /IN/ is not a separate morpheme never use /In/ ints place >>
Exactly exactly exactly! If [In] were truly easier to produce phonologically than [IN] we'd expect it to be used across to board of words with "ing" regardless of morphological context. We'd have *[br\In] for "bring" and *["slInSAt] for "slingshot." However, that never happens. The fact that the rules governing /IN/ --> [In] are very specific and pretty limited in scope clearly points to the fact that it's a specific morphophonemic rule and not related to articulatory ease.
<<2. /In/ is only found in present participles, and never in gerunds, which only use /IN/>>
Well that's true for most dialects. However, some people do in fact have usage like this: "Runnin' is hard" or "cookin' without butter is best." This usage is not sociologically prestigious but some native speakers do use it.
Exactly exactly exactly! If [In] were truly easier to produce phonologically than [IN] we'd expect it to be used across to board of words with "ing" regardless of morphological context. We'd have *[br\In] for "bring" and *["slInSAt] for "slingshot." However, that never happens. The fact that the rules governing /IN/ --> [In] are very specific and pretty limited in scope clearly points to the fact that it's a specific morphophonemic rule and not related to articulatory ease.
<<2. /In/ is only found in present participles, and never in gerunds, which only use /IN/>>
Well that's true for most dialects. However, some people do in fact have usage like this: "Runnin' is hard" or "cookin' without butter is best." This usage is not sociologically prestigious but some native speakers do use it.
>><<2. /In/ is only found in present participles, and never in gerunds, which only use /IN/>>
Well that's true for most dialects. However, some people do in fact have usage like this: "Runnin' is hard" or "cookin' without butter is best." This usage is not sociologically prestigious but some native speakers do use it.<<
Actually, I had said that the above only applies for most, but not *all* dialects. The matter is that just the fact that it applies to *some* dialects helps support that /In/ is derived from a historical present participle ending, because it is more likely that some dialects would analogize such to gerunds as well (the opposite direction of /IN/ being analogized from gerunds to present participles) than for /In/ to be used originally for *both* present participles and gerunds, and then later be limited in many dialects to *just* present participles (note how there are no dialects, to my knowledge at least, which use /In/ for only gerunds and only use /IN/ for present participles).
Well that's true for most dialects. However, some people do in fact have usage like this: "Runnin' is hard" or "cookin' without butter is best." This usage is not sociologically prestigious but some native speakers do use it.<<
Actually, I had said that the above only applies for most, but not *all* dialects. The matter is that just the fact that it applies to *some* dialects helps support that /In/ is derived from a historical present participle ending, because it is more likely that some dialects would analogize such to gerunds as well (the opposite direction of /IN/ being analogized from gerunds to present participles) than for /In/ to be used originally for *both* present participles and gerunds, and then later be limited in many dialects to *just* present participles (note how there are no dialects, to my knowledge at least, which use /In/ for only gerunds and only use /IN/ for present participles).