Non-rhoticity and vowel length

Take a word like "start", for example, and think of a non-rhotic accent, like some British accent. Does the length of the vowel still depend on whether the consonant after the (non-pronounced) R is voiced or unvoiced?
If so, the vowels in CART and CARD should have a different length, but for some reason short vowels in those cases in non-rhotic accents don't sound good to me.
So, I think that generally speaking POT in American English does not sound like PART in British English, and the vowel length is probably the biggest difference: POT --> short vowel, PART --> long vowel

Thanks.

Which would mean I believe CARD and CART have the same vowel length in non-rhotic accents, unlike in American English where the vowel in CART would be shorter.
When I say "non-rhotic accents" I am mainly thinking of British accents, but I am also interested in other non-rhotic accents too (like AAVE), so any comments are appreciated.

This is interesting. I have a bunch of British friends, but I never really noticed anything like that. Thinking of it now, POT (AmE) and PART (BrE) are a little different, maybe due to the vowel length as Johnny has mentioned.

I have to mention though, that while talking to one of my British friend last week, I noticed his pronunciation of "LAST," which I thought was "LOST". It took me a while to figure out he was saying "LAST". I'm a cot-caught merged AmE speaker and the way he said it got me thinking a little.

BTW, the vowel length in CARD and CART are actually different. I didn't notice until you point that out. I guess I have a lot to learn about my own speech.

>>BTW, the vowel length in CARD and CART are actually different. I didn't notice until you point that out. I guess I have a lot to learn about my own speech.<<

This is due to something called allophonic vowel length, which in English dialects entails the length of vowels varying depending on the voicing or, properly speaking, fortis/lenis values of the obstruent phonemes immediately following a given vowel, ignoring any sonorants in between. This seems to appear in practically all English dialects, but it is strongest in English dialects that have lost phonemic vowel length, as have most North American English dialects.

Johnny, I'm a non-rhotic Aussie, but pronounce card longer than cart (although I'm sure others here do use the longer vowel in both).

There can be three lengths of the vowel, nicely illustrated in the sequence

cut, cart, card

For the "I" vowel you have "Peter picked some peas" (medium, short, long).

Asian speakers often have trouble replicating these vowel lengths.

I pronounce "card" longer than "cart", but I don't think the vowel length in "cut" is significantly different from that in "cart".

I agree

>>I pronounce "card" longer than "cart", but I don't think the vowel length in "cut" is significantly different from that in "cart".<<

I myself have noticed the same, which I suspect is tied into preglottalization of plosive phonemes directly after vowels making said vowels shorter than they would have been otherwise.

>>I pronounce "card" longer than "cart", but I don't think the vowel length in "cut" is significantly different from that in "cart".<<

But both you, American, and Travis speak a rhotic dialect, so "card" has a long vowel, and "cart" has a short one. But my impression is it's not so in non-rhotic dialects. Can you imagine hearing a non-rhotic "cart" with a short vowel? For some reason, I can't, but after all I am not a native speaker.

>>But both you, American, and Travis speak a rhotic dialect, so "card" has a long vowel, and "cart" has a short one. But my impression is it's not so in non-rhotic dialects. Can you imagine hearing a non-rhotic "cart" with a short vowel? For some reason, I can't, but after all I am not a native speaker.<<

I think they mean in a subtle way, not short vs long. So "cart" and "card" are both pronounced with long vowels and the difference in length between them is minor.

Anyway, I, myself have never really paid attention to this and wouldn't consider it as something important. Of course there isn't that obvious contrast you might get like between "cut" and "cart" you hear in Australian English. Here, vowel length truly is contrasted by short vs long and is significant for clear communication.

I'd say that in Australian English the vowel in "cart", whilst still a long vowel, is shorter than that of "card". The vowel in "cut", on the other hand, is short. So, listing from short to long, I get "cut", "cart", "card" like Sojourner suggests. Of course there are two different things at play: the "cut"-"cart" distinction is phonemic whereas the "cart"-"card" distinction is allophonic.