USAGE: [e] vs. [E]

Okay, this is my last post of the day, so it will have to be my last
word on this subject for now.  This is turning into YAEPT (so many
threads seem to do that, kind of like all relay texts converge on
creation myths. . .)

>Hm? The sound I'd render in English as "eh" is X-SAMPA [E] (though it
>can be [e] in SAMPA-for-English IIRC).
Okay, first of all, I think of the spelling "eh" as representing [E], which is
the vowel I have in "bet", "let", etc.  This is distinct from the first
part of the diphthong I have in "bait", "late", etc, which is the tenser
[e].

There is an exception in the specific context of transcriptions of
stereotypical Canadian speech, where the spelling "eh" represents [ej],
as in "Take off, eh?" This spelling is counterintuitive to me but I have
learned to interpret it, just as I now know to interpret "er" in written
British dialect as [@] instead of [r\=] (Andy Capp used to sound very
odd in my head. . .)

When I learned Spanish, I was taught that |e| represented [e], which is
a sound that doesn't exist on its own in my 'lect of English.  It is, as
I said, the first part of my "long a" diphthong, but cut off before the
glide.  (I have since noticed that there are environments in which
Spanish /e/ is realized as the allophone [E], but that is not the usual
pronunciation.)

When I learned Esperanto, I was taught that |e| represented [E].  That
is, my "short e", which I believe is also the sound spelled as |è| (e
with grave) in standard French and Italian.  Using this vowel in tonic
open syllables has always been difficult for me, and indeed in my
experience other Esperanto speakers replace it with [e] in such
contexts: |ne| = [ne] and |araneo| = [a.ra'ne.o], beside |nek| = [nEk]
and |panelo| = [pa'nE.lo].

-Marcos