T. A. McLeay wrote: > On 02/02/07, Benct Philip Jonsson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> > Hence that "Igor"/"Ivan" with a "long e" vowel is not >> > particularly much more apt than with a "long i" vowel. >> > Perhaps I should try saying what I mean, instead of >> > expecting people to jump to my conclusions :) >> >> Or at least point out clearly that the FLEECE vowel is [Ii] >> for you! :-) But is the KIT vowel really [i] for you? No >> wonder that Aussies and Kiwis find their accents *very* >> different, since Kiwi KIT is [I\] or even [@]! > > [i] is the nearest vowel, but it's not as peripheral as, say, French. > From the various cases of [i] and [I] I've heard in different > languages (e.g. Icelandic, some German dialects or Kazakh), [i] sounds > much more like KIT than [I] does on average. (Actually, in Kazakh, [i] > is described as a "long i" and is phonemically /Ij/, but to my ear it > is quite clearly a short [i]..) Regarding Kazak, are you talking about the I in words like "bir" (one) and "siz" (you) written with the same I-character as English, or the other one, like in "siyr" (cow) and "it" (dog) written with the Russian I (backwards N)? To me, the one in "bir" seems like a centralized version of [I], while the one in "it" seems to be an ordinary cardinal [i].