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

Dan Sulani wrote:
>I remember being taught (in the US, a long time ago) to use /y/ to
>signify a palatal approximant.  But, having just looked at the IPA site
> at Brown U., I note that, in IPA at any rate, this is wrong:
>
>/y/ is cardinal vowel 9: close front rounded
>
>/j/ is a palatal appoximant
>
>Interesting!>
But true.  There is an historical aspect to this, which partially explains
American usage, even if it may not excuse it. Our old friend, the typewriter
keyboard, was also responsible.  Early phonemic theorists adhered as rigidly
as they could to "one sound, one symbol".  Also, they preferred not to mix
caps and l.c.-- hence US phonemic /i/: /iy/ etc.  So "c" and "j" came to
represent English /tS/ and /dZ/, -- "c"in particular was usually written
with hacek, and all such diacritics had to be inserted by hand into your
typed ms.  If you wanted to use IPA symbols, they had to be handwritten
too-- and only a few printers of learned journals seem to have had IPA, or
even European,  typefonts.  So-- /j/ being [dZ], /y/ perforce became the
palatal approximant-- incidentally matching nicely the spelling system, and
making it a little easier to get the idea of "phonemes" across to future
teachers of English.
European linguists, more accustomed to the use of "j" as [j], and whose
typewriters had accent keys, were less constrained than we.  (And their
printers had a wider variety of fonts-- and were willing, on occasion, to
invest in very exotic things like the Egyptian font for Gardiner's "Egyptian
Grammar" (Oxford).

Up until the 50s, an international typewriter was rara avis.  Even in the
early 60s, in NYC, I had to wait several weeks for a special-order Spanish
keyboard machine.
In the 70s, I seem to recall that the dept. secretary had an (expensive) IPA
ball for her IBM electric, which reliable faculty might be allowed to use
under her watchful eye.