Re: Rs

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Joe Fatula wrote:

> From: "Chris Bates" <christopher.bates@...>
> Subject: Rs
>
>
> > Why does english not use any r sound after a vowel? I mean, r can only
> > occur if it is followed by another vowel, "or", "ar" "er" "ur" etc
> > normally represent long vowel sounds, and "ir" represents two vowel
> > sounds if i'm not confused. It just seems strange... and its slightly
> > irritating since I'm trying to learn spanish and I find myself utterly
> > incapable of pronouncing a spanish trilled r, or of using an english one
> > to replace it all the time (since spanish has rs occuring at the end of
> > words and when not followed by a vowel).
>
> I don't think I understand the question, but it puzzles me enough that I'm
> looking for some clarification.  What do you mean by saying "ir" represents
> two vowel sounds?  Are you talking about when the "i" is long, as in "fire"?
> Long "i" does usually represent /ai/, two vowels in a row.  But that's true
> whether there's an "r" or not.  And "r" can certainly appear without a vowel
> after it, cf. "for", "far", "char", "chair", "oar", just to mention a few.
Chris presumably speaks with a non-rhotic dialect. These dialects
exchanged the opportunity to have /r/ before a non-vowel with the chance
to sound an awful lot nicer, so 'fo(u)r' is /fo:/ or /fO:/ (rhymes with
our dialects' 'paw'). For us non-rhotics, pronouncing /r/ in that position
can be mighty difficult. Not that we'd want to, of course. I can't imagine
what possible benefit it would offer.

As to the ir=two vowels, I'm guessing he means phonemic /i:/+orthographic
<r> in combinations like 'fear'. In many non-rhotic dialects, this is
pronounced [I@].


--
Tristan                  <kesuari@...>

War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
                      - fortune.

Reply