Re: British Received Pronunciation
- Mach wrote:
> >I've read that some would think of the _i_ in _Goldilocks_Danny answered:
> >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.