Re: THEORY: [i:]=[ij]? (was Re: Pronouncing "Boreanesia")

Steg Belsky wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 02:48:37 +0100 Kristian Jensen <kljensen@...>
> writes:
> > >> In cases where a semivowel is next to a vowel with an identical
> > place
> > >> of articulation (like "yiddish", "ying", "woo"), the semivowels
> > can
> > >> become a bit more closed.
>
> > >The first two examples are [jI] not [ji], no?
>
> > Eeeh gads! "Ying" is actually a terrible example 'cuz it involves
> > /I/ not
> > /i/. "Yiddish" is /ji/ though.
>
> > -kristian- 8)
> -
>
> I've never heard "Yiddish" with /i/....it's always ['jIdIS] (with a
> flapped /d/, it sounds like).  Hence the orthographic {dd} to mark the
> preceding {i} as short /I/, and not long /aj/ - waitasec....if it was /i/
> it'd be written {Yeedish}, wouldn't it?  The only time i've heard
> anything approaching [jidiS] is in Yiddish itself, which doesn't
> distinguish between the sounds [i] and [I].
With foreign words, anything goes. The "i" in Yiddish could represent
/i/, /aj/ /I/, whatever. I've only heard it /'jIdiS/, as you say. I know
quite a few Yiddish speakers, I could ask them, but they all call it
Jewish, which is what Yiddish means.

--
Robert