> >I've read that some would think of the _i_ in _Goldilocks_
> >as being like the vowel of _eat, keep_ but others that
> >it'd be like the vowel of _hit, sit, nibble_. The point is:
> >Both are right; it's an unstressed vowel where the distinction
> >doesn't matter.
> In terms of accent, it does indeed matter.
Of course it does, in terms of accent. In terms of distinctiveness, it
doesn't, that is, there's no single accent that would distinguish unstressed
/i/ from unstressed /I/ (according to SAMPA).
And concerning tengwar, I'd strongly suggest _not_ to try to represent
accents when spelling "phonetically", but only to represent distinctive
sounds, that is, to spell phonemically.
So I'd recommend to spell _king_ with the same vowel sign of _see, queen_ to
those who pronounce these words with the same vowel sound and after all not
with the vowel sound of _hit, chick_. However, I woulnd't recommend to spell
the word _Goldilocks_ with that same vowel sign of _see queen_, even to
those who pronounce it with the same vowel sound, because there's still an
important difference between the vowel sounds of _Goldilocks_ and of _see,
queen_: The latter is stressed, while the former is unstressed. And the
unstressedness of the _i_ in Goldilocks is the most important feature of
this sound, because this feature is shared by all speakers, no matter
whether they pronounce it like _see, queen_ or like _hit, chick_.
I know this wasn't the question; I just tried to make an on-topic comment.