Do you pronounce it [s@`"r\aUnd] or [s@"r\aUnd]?
Surround
<<su'prise>>
It's interesting that you brought that up, because I'm fully rhotic, but pronounce 'surprise' [s@"pv\aIz], with no r-colouring. This pronunciation is on dictionary.com, but it's the second one listed and I wonder how widespread it is.
I'm expecting Lazar to have [s@r\aUnd] because of New England's recent non-rhoticism and general retention of distinctions before intervocalic /r/.
It's interesting that you brought that up, because I'm fully rhotic, but pronounce 'surprise' [s@"pv\aIz], with no r-colouring. This pronunciation is on dictionary.com, but it's the second one listed and I wonder how widespread it is.
I'm expecting Lazar to have [s@r\aUnd] because of New England's recent non-rhoticism and general retention of distinctions before intervocalic /r/.
Yeah, I have [s@"r\aUnd].
And even though I'm fully rhotic, I do have [s@"p_hr\aIz] "surprise" and ["gVvn=@`] "governor". I think these two pronunciations are common throughout North America.
And even though I'm fully rhotic, I do have [s@"p_hr\aIz] "surprise" and ["gVvn=@`] "governor". I think these two pronunciations are common throughout North America.
<<Then you're not fully rhotic.>>
Yes I am. Those two pronunciations have nothing to do with systematic non-rhoticism, and they're common (probably predominant) across North America - most dictionaries list them. So by your standards, a Canadian like Josh Lalonde is not fully rhotic either?
Yes I am. Those two pronunciations have nothing to do with systematic non-rhoticism, and they're common (probably predominant) across North America - most dictionaries list them. So by your standards, a Canadian like Josh Lalonde is not fully rhotic either?
To be clear, I would define "fully rhotic" as meaning that you regularly preserve historical rhoticized vowels, and that you don't have free variation between rhoticized and de-rhoticized vowels (which would be partial rhoticity). There are no words in my speech that could have free variation between rhotic and non-rhotic forms.
No, wait, actually I think free variation would be "variable rhoticity", and "partial rhoticity" would be the regular preservation of some (but not all) historical rhoticized vowels, or the preservation of them in certain broad phonological contexts. By this standard I suppose you could say that I'm not fully rhotic because there does seem to be a somewhat consistent rule of dissociation governing my pronunciations of "surprise", "governor", and also (it comes to mind) "northerner" and "southerner", but what I mean to say is that I think this would be a pedantic interpretation of the terminology.
I'm completely rhotic, and I too usually gloss over the first R in surprise and governor.
I'm fully rhotic, but I sometimes gloss over the R in -er ending words.
Dans tous les cas, An <surround> est bien issu de l'ancien français <suronder> <soronder> <souronder> <surunder> <sourounder> <surounder> <seuronder> (etc).
On trouve aussi les graphies <surrunder> (donc deux <r> comme en anglais) & <souzrounder>.
On trouve aussi les graphies <surrunder> (donc deux <r> comme en anglais) & <souzrounder>.
Is there any rules for r-lessness in some words in rhotic American dialects?
governer
southerner
northerner
surprise
One thing that comes to mind is that all of these words have more then two rhotic vowels or an /r/, so maybe that has something to do with it?
governer
southerner
northerner
surprise
One thing that comes to mind is that all of these words have more then two rhotic vowels or an /r/, so maybe that has something to do with it?
<<I'm fully rhotic, but I sometimes gloss over the R in -er ending words.>>
I don't think this can really be considered full rhoticism. This is common in Jamaica, where /r/ is generally preserved in stressed word final syllables, but dropped before consonants and in unstressed word finals, like -er. So in Jamaica:
car [kya:r\]
cart [kya:t]
carter [kya:ta]
<<Is there any rules for r-lessness in some words in rhotic American dialects? >>
No, I don't think there are any rules for this. These words have their individual histories in different accents. I say surprise [s@"pv\aIz], with no r-colouring, but for the other three, I would always use [@`].
I don't think this can really be considered full rhoticism. This is common in Jamaica, where /r/ is generally preserved in stressed word final syllables, but dropped before consonants and in unstressed word finals, like -er. So in Jamaica:
car [kya:r\]
cart [kya:t]
carter [kya:ta]
<<Is there any rules for r-lessness in some words in rhotic American dialects? >>
No, I don't think there are any rules for this. These words have their individual histories in different accents. I say surprise [s@"pv\aIz], with no r-colouring, but for the other three, I would always use [@`].
"I'm fully rhotic, but pronounce 'surprise' [s@"pv\aIz]," that is surprising ... along with the other r-droppings mentioned. I guess, though, it's just a case of elision: why should /r/ be immune to this?
I have free variation between [s@:"Ra:U~nd] and [sR=:"a:U~nd]. In general, in cases where I have /@r/ before a stressed vowel, I have free variation between [@:R] and [R=:]. Note, though that [@:R] tends to be more preferred in more careful speech and [R=:] tends to be more preferred in less careful speech, even though there is variation between the two across all registers.