2

This question is related to my previous question: Why does “singer” have /ŋ/ and “longer” have /ŋg/? but not a duplicate.

From Herrison's answer, I learned that the -er in both "singer" and "longer" is not the same:

Singer and longer both end in the letters -er, but they don't end in the same suffix: singer ends in the -er suffix that forms agent nouns, while longer ends in the -er suffix that forms comparative adjectives.

Now I wonder what will happen if I attach the verb making suffixes -ize (e.g. materialize) and -ify (e.g. "intensify") to a word that ends in /ŋ/ (say ring). The [ŋg] is found in middle of words such as finger, younger, stronger etc.

Let's say there is a word (not a verb) that ends in /ŋ/ and we want to make it a verb by adding -ize or -ify to it, will the ending /ŋ/ become [ŋg] or it will remain [ŋ]? For example, suppose I want to make "anything" a verb by adding -ize or -ify to it:

  • anything /ˈɛnɪθɪŋ/ + ize = anythingize /ˈɛnɪθɪŋaɪz/ or /ˈɛnɪθɪŋgaɪz/?
  • anything /ˈɛnɪθɪŋ/ + ify = anythingify /ˈɛnɪθɪŋɪfaɪ/ or /ˈɛnɪθɪŋgɪfaɪ/?

I am talking about the accents that are considered standard (Southern British and General American). In simple words, the accents in which "singer" has only [ŋ] not [ŋg]

(NOTE: I am not concerned about what meaning it would give. I am merely asking about "pronunciation").

6
  • 2
    I think it is clear to most users here that your interest is mainly on pronunciation rather than meaning :)
    – user 66974
    Feb 28 at 8:25
  • 2
    Pronunciation is not standard. There are many places in England where singer has [ŋg], as well as many where it doesn't.
    – Andrew Leach
    Feb 28 at 8:40
  • @user66974 - That's so true! ;-) (mainly pronunciation with a smattering of etymology)
    – user387044
    Feb 28 at 9:48
  • @AndrewLeach - Yes, I know that and I was talking about the varieties that are considered standard. If it's still not clear, I mean the accents in which "singer" has [ŋ] only. I will update my question.
    – user387044
    Feb 28 at 9:49
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because the question is not about standard English but about coining new words.
    – Greybeard
    Feb 28 at 12:29
0

These suffixes are rarely attached to a base of this form. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following words and pronunciations (leaving out some obsolete forms):

  • diphthongize, monophthongize /ŋɡ/ in British English, /ŋ(ɡ)/ in American English
  • thingify /ŋ/ in both British English and American English

The general guideline I would give is that /ŋɡ/ is unlikely with new formations, especially if the word is a "nonce formation" of the kind that is often hyphenated: if a spelling like "anything-ize" or "anything-ify" seems possible, then the pronunciation will likely not have /g/.

The same tendency to not use /g/ applies to words suffixed with -ish, which is somewhat more common: thus wrongish, strongish, longish, youngish are all given by the Oxford English Dictionary with /ŋɪʃ/.

1

It could be pronounced either way. Compare diphthongise (-ize) which is derived from diphthong (ends in /ŋ/) and -ise and is mostly pronounced with [ŋ] (I've heard it pronounced [ˈdifθɒŋɡaɪz]). For diphthongise, Lexico and Merriam-Webster give the pronunciation with [ŋ] only:

  • /ˈdɪfθɒŋʌɪz/

However, Collins Dictionary and Dictionary.com list the pronunciation with [ŋɡ] as an alternative.

As for the suffix -ify, I think it can also be pronounced in both ways; with [ŋ] or [ŋɡ]. There aren't many ify-verbs that have [ŋ] before the -ify, the only one I've been able to find is stringify for which Wikitionary gives /ˈstɹɪŋɪfaɪ/ only.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy