Quote - "I think written 'r' should be pronounced, and no 'r' should be pronounced where none exists in writing. That's how most native English speakers around the world do it."
The pronunciation of an 'r' is determined by the form of English learnt and spoken which is often dependent on where one is raised. Writing often does not determine correct pronunciation nor does a certain number of native English speakers around the world.
Quote - "Those are a totally different case, because no one pronounces the ''gh'' in ''through'', the ''k'' and the ''gh'' in ''knight'' and the ''w'' in ''writing''."
This is incorrect. There are speakers who do pronounce the "w" in "write" to pronounce "right" differently. The pronunciation of "h" is optional in words containing "wh" as is the "t" in "often" and there countless other examples.
One unusual example is the pronunciation of "comfortable" among Americans. I've heard it pronounced as "comftrable" and "comfrable". If this is what you're accustomed to, please don't tell others how you think they should pronounce things.
"Comfortable" is also pronounced "comfterbull" in the US (that's how I say it).
I myself also pronounce "comfortable" like "comfterble", that is, /"k@mftr=bl=/ --> ["k_h@~:mf.t@`.bl=].
Quote-''This is incorrect. There are speakers who do pronounce the "w" in "write" to pronounce "right" differently.''
And where are these people from?
Can you give me an example of someone you've heard and read about pronouncing the ''w'' in ''write''?
As long as you're using a pretty narrow transcription standard for IPA, Travis, I'd assume you probably also say ["k_h@~:Ff.t@`.bl=], using the labiodental nasal [F] in normal rapid speech as compared to ["k_h@~:mf.t@`.bl=] with the underlying [m]. At least that's how I do it and hear it said by everyone in normal fast speech.
What does an English rhotic 'r' sound like?
Kirk, yes, I might be using [F] rather than [m] there, which I hadn't thought about earlier.
Mxsmanic;
You've missed the point entirely.
The connection between English orthography and English phonetics is extremely tenuous. The written language is no gauge at all of how people actually pronounce words.
I agree with JJM, Mxsmanic. You missed the point entirely (also, to be picky I should point out that in a few dialects the spelling "gh" actually does represent something, [x] phonetically, but it's true most people don't have that sound). In your earlier post, by essentially insisting that everyone speak exactly as the written forms would indicate, you're not harboring a realistic view of natural language, which does not bow down to writing, but the other way around. Anyway, as JJM pointed out, the relationship between spelling and language as actually spoken can be two quite different things althogether, so insisting that nonrhotic speakers not insert "intrusive r" in their speech simply because they don't spell it that way is ridiculous.
How about some folksy speculation as to why the Americans and other speakers of English started pronouncing their 'r' in certain words which in British English make a schwa sound ?
Could it be that the pronunciation of the written form was overgeneralised ? In colonial schoolrooms, say, far from the main speech community in Britain. So the initial 'r' sound in 'red' would be, seemingly quite 'logically' given a similar pronunciation in mid or final positions.
A bit like when a child reads gate-a-way for gateway.
But not like the horrible long 'a' in 'bath' or 'grass' in southern English, which began as an affectation, I seem to rember hearing somewhere.
''This is incorrect. There are speakers who do pronounce the "w" in "write" to pronounce "right" differently.''
True. Basically it changes the nature of "r" so that the letter is pronounced with the lips pursed. I personally don't think it makes much difference.
Quote-''I agree with JJM, Mxsmanic. You missed the point entirely (also, to be picky I should point out that in a few dialects the spelling "gh" actually does represent something, [x] phonetically, but it's true most people don't have that sound). In your earlier post, by essentially insisting that everyone speak exactly as the written forms would indicate, you're not harboring a realistic view of natural language, which does not bow down to writing, but the other way around. Anyway, as JJM pointed out, the relationship between spelling and language as actually spoken can be two quite different things althogether, so insisting that nonrhotic speakers not insert "intrusive r" in their speech simply because they don't spell it that way is ridiculous.''
Kirk,
Doesn't it make more sense to pronounce ''car'' as /kAr/ than it does to pronounce it /kA/. ''r's'' should be pronounced where they're written and not pronounced where they're not written like most people do. Not pronouncing r's at the end of words is stupid and lazy and creates a whole bunch of needless and annoying homonyms, for example:
awe-or/ore/oar
law-lore
Shaw-shore
saw-sore
gnaw-nor
caw-core
maw-more
whore/haw
flaw-floor
raw-roar
paw-pore/poor/pour
pawn-porn
paws/pause-pores/pours
cause-cores
better/betta
saws-sores
sauce-source
sawed-sword
sort-sought
caught-court
fought-fort
taught-tort
talk-torque
farther/father
tort/taught
sore/saw
nor/gnaw
core/caw
more/maw
fa/far
sought/sort
source/sauce
sword/sawed
sores/saws
cores/cause
pores/pours/paws/pause
floor/flaw
ska/scar
roar/raw
pensular/pensula
larva/lava
aren't/aunt
ah/are
baa/bar
mar/ma
spa/spar
barn/bahn
tuna/tuner
kinda/kinder
sheer/Shia
sorta/sorter
No one needs to have to deal with all these homonyms. Just pronounce the ''r'' like everyone else does, non-rhotic speakers.
''You missed the point entirely''
My point is that, for example the ''w'' in ''two'' is not pronounced by anyone, so it's not stupid not to pronounce it, but the ''r's'' at the ends of words are pronounced by most English speakers and so it is stupid not to pronounce them.
/me blinks in the general direction of Mxsmanic...
That's not Mxsmanic and he doesn't write that way. I don't think he's that stupid either.