On 21 Oct 2008, at 01:44, nicholas williams wrote: > dy:k and dju:k as in English Neil writes dûk. No way is that [dyːk] and it certainly didn't become [diːk]. (I know his <duchi> is unattested but it's still [ˈdʊtʃi] not [ˈdɪtʃi].) Do you think the phonology of BK had [y:] for this word? Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com