Atmir Ilias:
The natural evolution of the language drives the spoken sounds toward particular problems, such as the "g" end. I think that English somehow had an unnatural developement, which surely was modeled by mimicking its natural language, but at the same time artificially it was optimized with the adding of new concepts, words, etc, capable of performing the new tasks of our developing. One of them is the "ing" end code placed at the end of the word. I can prove that it has an precise meaning, althought it would be a very “UFO" concept for the contemporary linguists ,but it obviously is a big obstacle for the pronounciation; the main negative effects are: both the "slow down" of the pronounciation and the physical tiredness of vocal cords, but it needs pages to explain the why. Today, it seems to be that the logical questions "Ww" are not anymore important. What is clear is simply that they did not know the phonetics and the knowledge about this phonetic problem is not so much different these days.

D Sky Onosson:
um… what?

Atmir Ilias:
Student of Linguistics since 1990….

D Sky Onosson:
As am I… just having trouble understanding some of your points:

"unnatural developement" (sic)
"artificially … optimized with the adding of new concepts"
"UFO concept"
"the logical questions 'Ww' are not anymore important"

It's up to you if you care to elaborate, but I can't make much sense out of what you posted above.

Atmir Ilias:
If for you the language evolution is an unchanging process, where always the elite decides what is natural and what is artificial on it, you have to deal with the subjectivity of science. If we do not see the dynamic of the process, we must accept that people started to speak when thay have had 500 thousand words and the "ing" was invented thousands years ago, simultaneosly by all english people of that time. That's why the creation is still alive and the Evolution is still a theory. We leave gaps in our knowledges causing serious problems, because of our self-limitations.
I'm telling you only a little evidence.
The word "ingnorare-ignore". Why its pronounciation has changed in Italian ? There is not anymore the "g" sound, althought it was a soft "g" and it's not placed at the end of the word.
But, when the frequence of "g" is very high and the people try to avoid always more its pronounciation and the linguists do not react, like language rules are like penal rules, it becomes difficult for all participants to reject the fact that it is a severe issue.

Atmir Ilias:
1.ignorare /iɲɲoˈrare/

I appreciate that English isn't your first language, but it's impossible to tell what you mean. Is there some paper or site you could link to that gives the gist?

Re ignorare, I'm not sure there ever was a /g/. The Latin was probably pronounced something like /iŋnoː'raːre/.

Atmir Ilias:

In fact, I do not like it. Nothing interesting on it, and so, I do not have any intention to improve it, on the contrary I have always ignored its gist. Albanian is fairly enough for me.
What I think is that the "g" is a code, and I still insist, although someone does not like it.
Congratulation, You find it in the "gist", which in Albanian is "finger", but Albanians also have it in the words like /bajg/, which means /dung/. They have the same position of "g"-s and the same meaning
Do not forget that "baj" means "make". You can use a calculator to find out the differences.
Um.. It is also in God…

Atmir Ilias:
How about significāre/siɲɲifiˈkare/, segno /ˈseɲɲo/ ?


Again, no /g/ in the Latin. Orthographical gn probably = ŋn. See e.g. Allen, Vox Latina for evidence.