In my opinion, in British English, "a" in "about" same to "er" in "her"? Is there one vowel sounds like "er" BUT without the "r" sound in american english? or just like this---http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t919.htm
one vowel sounds like "er" without "r"?
The letter "R" is difficult for everyone. Please take a look at www.achildswishes.com The Ruling R Bear animation may help your students.
Most Sincerely,
Joanne Tweed
Most Sincerely,
Joanne Tweed
The letter "R" is not difficult for me nor are the sounds it indicates.
"Here is our bear." ==>> /hI:.riz.{O.be:/
"Here is our bear." ==>> /hI:.riz.{O.be:/
There is nothing particularly difficult about the pronunciation of English 'r', which is a postalveolar approximant. Hold the tip of your tongue just slightly behind the alveolar ridge (the flat hard ridge inside your mouth behind the upper teeth), with the tip curled slightly backwards and not actually touching the ridge. It should be close to the ridge but not so much that air hisses past it. That's the postalveolar approximant. It's far easier to do than it is to describe.
In American English, 'r' is pronounced as written. In non-rhotic forms of British English or other English pronunciations, the rules are much more bizarre: r is not pronounced if no vowel follows, even when it is written—and yet sometimes it is pronounced after a vowel at the end of a word if the next word starts with a vowel, even though it isn't written anywhere ("instrusive 'r'"). For obvious reasons, I tend to recommend the American way of doing it, which follows spelling. Most other pronunciations are rhotic as American is, as well, including Irish and Scots English.
In American English, 'r' is pronounced as written. In non-rhotic forms of British English or other English pronunciations, the rules are much more bizarre: r is not pronounced if no vowel follows, even when it is written—and yet sometimes it is pronounced after a vowel at the end of a word if the next word starts with a vowel, even though it isn't written anywhere ("instrusive 'r'"). For obvious reasons, I tend to recommend the American way of doing it, which follows spelling. Most other pronunciations are rhotic as American is, as well, including Irish and Scots English.
Your reasons are only obvious, Mxsmanic, to those who know you and your biased way of thinking well. Call our rules "bizarre" if you will but to us they are quite natural. Note also you don't suggest pronouncing the <th> in "clothes" as /D/. How about "iron"? It a homophone for "ion" for me but doesn't fit the usual pattern. How do others pronounce it?
It may seem bizarre to those who are incognizant or feigning self-importance, but the one rule for non-rhotic English is very simple: an 'r' sound is pronounced only if it is followed by a vowel.
<<In American English, 'r' is pronounced as written. In non-rhotic forms of British English or other English pronunciations, the rules are much more bizarre: r is not pronounced if no vowel follows, even when it is written—and yet sometimes it is pronounced after a vowel at the end of a word if the next word starts with a vowel, even though it isn't written anywhere ("instrusive 'r'").>>
You're mistaken if you think that the intrusive R is limited to non-North American English. It is quite widespread in New England, among non-rhotic and even rhotic speakers.
<<For obvious reasons, I tend to recommend the American way of doing it, which follows spelling.>>
No, your reasons are not obvious. Non-rhotacism (provided that intrusive R is used) would be easier for learners, as there would be fewer phonetic distinctions to learn. There would just be a simple rule of allophony that if a non-high vowel is followed by another vowel, an [r\] is inserted.
You're mistaken if you think that the intrusive R is limited to non-North American English. It is quite widespread in New England, among non-rhotic and even rhotic speakers.
<<For obvious reasons, I tend to recommend the American way of doing it, which follows spelling.>>
No, your reasons are not obvious. Non-rhotacism (provided that intrusive R is used) would be easier for learners, as there would be fewer phonetic distinctions to learn. There would just be a simple rule of allophony that if a non-high vowel is followed by another vowel, an [r\] is inserted.
<<The main reason is that he is probably a rhotic speaker.>>
Of course - he's simply biased in favor of what's familiar to him. (I should note that I myself am a rhotic speaker, although being a New Englander, I do use the intrusive R.)
Of course - he's simply biased in favor of what's familiar to him. (I should note that I myself am a rhotic speaker, although being a New Englander, I do use the intrusive R.)
Yes, that's about as good as Mxsmanic's reason is. Falling back on orthography is just an excuse. Many ESL students have trouble with /r/. Many have trouble with final consonants. Many have trouble with consonant clusters. For example, Japanese ESL students have trouble with all of these. It is by no means easier for them to adopt a rhotic style. Furthermore it's best to learn pronunciation by ear anyway rather than trying to derive it from spelling.
<<Of course - he's simply biased in favor of what's familiar to him. (I should note that I myself am a rhotic speaker, although being a New Englander, I do use the intrusive R.)>>
That's interesting. So for "data, water, data is, water is", you say "dat[@]", "wat[@`]", but "dat[@r]is", "wat[@r]is"? How about "draw[r]ing", "withdraw[r]al", etc? I suppose you speak in a formerly non-rhotic area that rhoticism has spread to by virtue of being part of the standard for America?
(In parts of England that are along the rhotic isoglosses, you get people speaking "hyperhotically", pronouncing /r/ after many vowels that are homophonous in non-rhotic accents, if you know what I mean. So they might say "la[r]st" or "daugh[r]te[r]" for "last" and "daughter" (presumably such regions use broad A in "last", "bath" etc). These regions have tend to shortly then-after become non-rhotic.)
I, too, advocate non-rhotic speech, because it's so much easier and rule-based, tho the rule isn't as simple as "after non-high vowels", necessarily. In AusE, linking-/intrusive-r is used after /I@ e: a: o: 3: @/ but not after /&O i: u\: @u\ Ae oi/, bearing in mind that the most common pronunciation of /&O/=ash--open-o in connected speech is [&@]=ash-schwa, and that the right-edge of /I@/ and /i:/ are, in spite of their orthographies, identical. (u\=u-dashed). Actually, I can't find any distinction between the two groups, unless we can consider /I@/ to be a monophthong and /i:, u\:/ to be complex. For /I@/ and /i:/, that's trivial and simply involves listening to how people speak. For /u\:/, it's much harder; it tends to be pronounced monophthongally. I would hazard that if the current directions of change to AusE continue in much the same way they've been going since the 1960s, then linking/intrusive R will become archaic here. (Forebodingly, I find that in reading complex/formal language, many of my peers—and perhaps me too—tend to avoid linking/intrusive R in favor of a glottal stop, thus [wo:t_h6?Iz] for what they'd normally say as [wo:4@r\Iz].)
(In New Zealand English, where SQUARE and NEAR are both still diphthongs roughly [i@] and [I@] or else totally merged as [i@], the solution is that many forms of speech, /&O/ *does* take a linking R. Thus, the non-high vowel rule works for the people who do this in the forms of speech they do it in, in spite of the lowered articulation of /&O/.)
That's interesting. So for "data, water, data is, water is", you say "dat[@]", "wat[@`]", but "dat[@r]is", "wat[@r]is"? How about "draw[r]ing", "withdraw[r]al", etc? I suppose you speak in a formerly non-rhotic area that rhoticism has spread to by virtue of being part of the standard for America?
(In parts of England that are along the rhotic isoglosses, you get people speaking "hyperhotically", pronouncing /r/ after many vowels that are homophonous in non-rhotic accents, if you know what I mean. So they might say "la[r]st" or "daugh[r]te[r]" for "last" and "daughter" (presumably such regions use broad A in "last", "bath" etc). These regions have tend to shortly then-after become non-rhotic.)
I, too, advocate non-rhotic speech, because it's so much easier and rule-based, tho the rule isn't as simple as "after non-high vowels", necessarily. In AusE, linking-/intrusive-r is used after /I@ e: a: o: 3: @/ but not after /&O i: u\: @u\ Ae oi/, bearing in mind that the most common pronunciation of /&O/=ash--open-o in connected speech is [&@]=ash-schwa, and that the right-edge of /I@/ and /i:/ are, in spite of their orthographies, identical. (u\=u-dashed). Actually, I can't find any distinction between the two groups, unless we can consider /I@/ to be a monophthong and /i:, u\:/ to be complex. For /I@/ and /i:/, that's trivial and simply involves listening to how people speak. For /u\:/, it's much harder; it tends to be pronounced monophthongally. I would hazard that if the current directions of change to AusE continue in much the same way they've been going since the 1960s, then linking/intrusive R will become archaic here. (Forebodingly, I find that in reading complex/formal language, many of my peers—and perhaps me too—tend to avoid linking/intrusive R in favor of a glottal stop, thus [wo:t_h6?Iz] for what they'd normally say as [wo:4@r\Iz].)
(In New Zealand English, where SQUARE and NEAR are both still diphthongs roughly [i@] and [I@] or else totally merged as [i@], the solution is that many forms of speech, /&O/ *does* take a linking R. Thus, the non-high vowel rule works for the people who do this in the forms of speech they do it in, in spite of the lowered articulation of /&O/.)