Keth wrote:

> > >>Einu sinni deildu norðanvindurinn og sólin um, hvort þeirra
> > >>ei:nY sIn:I teiltY norDanvIntYrIn o sou:lIn Ym k^hvor^0t Teir:a
>
> Actually, I do not understand everything about these phonethics.
> [^h] is a breath that is okay ( a small h superscript in textbooks)
> But [^0] is written underneath some letters. Is it a kind of rolling
> sound?

I have no idea what "rolling sound" means... The symbol you refer to
indicates voicelessness. In your phonetisation, you had [hr], which
is, strictly speaking, wrong (even if it was in the book);
orthographic <hr> (in both ON and MI) is pronounced [r^0], just like
the <r> in MI <rp rt rk> (pronounced [r^0p], etc). [hr] would actually
be extremely difficult to pronounce, I think, without lapsing into
[r^0].

Actually, I see now that I've been digressing a bit from standard
transcription; the SAMPA homepage has [_h] and [_0], not with the ^
symbol I've been using. But that's quite trivial. I must have picked
up the ^ use from some other net user discussing phonetics.

> And here perhaps a redundant question that was explained
> before: What is the difference between [i] and [I]?

The difference is in aperture (how open the mouth is); [i] is more
closed, while [I] is slightly more open. The vowel in <feet> is [i:],
i.e. a long [i], while the vowel in <fit> is a short [I]. I'd suppose
in standard Nowegian (say, Bokmål), you'd have the preposition <i>
(in, into), pronounced [i], and the adverb <inn> (inside), pronounced
[In].

> Also, the u was pronounced like [Y] in MI.
> Does that mean that it is a pointed u, like the German ü?

Well, yes, but like <ü> in <Günther>, or so I gather. The relation
between [Y] and [y] is like the relation between [I] and [i],
respectively; i.e., a slight difference in aperture. The relation
between [i] and [y], meanwhile, is only the roundedness of the mouth;
if you round your mouth and attempt to pronounce [i] (while keeping
your lips rounded), you should get [y].

However, this is not a class in phonetics, so I'll leave it at that :)
Again, I encourage you, Keth, to get some reference material on
phonetics. Just so you won't always have to be speaking in terms of
"that French sound, and this "rolling" Dutch sound, and the way the
Japanese say it, etc etc etc..."; you'd be surprised how much you
don't actually know about the sounds in the languages you speak - no
offence meant (the same applied to me, when I was a polyglot who
hadn't bothered to learn some phonetics).

Óskar