one vowel sounds like "er" without "r"?

<<The thing that most fascinates me about intrusive [r/] in non-rhotic accents is that it doesn't even have to apply across word boundaries. For instance, many non-rhotic speakers do say ["dr\O:r\IN] for "drawing," in addition to expected intrusive [r\] in something like "I draw a car" [aI dr\O: r\@ k_hA:]. It's ["dr\A.iN] and [aI dr\A @ k_hAr\] for me, by the way.>>

Of course, you don't even have to be non-rhotic to do that. In my idiolect it's pretty much obligatory to pronounce "drawing" as "drawring/drorring" [dr\Qr\IN]. Likewise "I draw a car" would usually be [aI dr\Q r\@ kAr\]. It actually sounds kinda weird to me if I try to follow [A], [Q], or [@] with another vowel.

<<Of course, you don't even have to be non-rhotic to do that. In my idiolect it's pretty much obligatory to pronounce "drawing" as "drawring/drorring" [dr\Qr\IN]. Likewise "I draw a car" would usually be [aI dr\Q r\@ kAr\]. It actually sounds kinda weird to me if I try to follow [A], [Q], or [@] with another vowel.>>

That's true, but you're a special case :) Even tho you're rhotic, there's a strong non-rhotic heritage in your region (just curious, are your parents non-rhotic or rhotic?) so it's not surprising intrusive-r shows up even in people there who are rhotic speakers. I know I heard John Kerry (who's rhotic) say "idear" a few times--blame it on the Massachusetts heritage :)

I prefer to say "to-may-to" myself, Tiff! I was agreeing with you back there.

<<(just curious, are your parents non-rhotic or rhotic?)>>

My father is consistently rhotic, but my mother is a bit variable. In childhood she was totally non-rhotic (and with an extensive trap-bath split to boot). As she got older these features have lessened, but not disappeared. Though as I've started to teach her about phonology and dialects, she's been trying to reassert her regional accent by being more consistent with non-rhotacism and the trap-bath split. ;-)

You'll hear a lot of people around here who are variable with respect to non-rhotacism, often depending on formality, emphasis, and rate of speech. I was listening to a Ted Kennedy speech once, and even within a sentence he can alternate between rhotacism and non-rhotacism.

<<Even tho you're rhotic, there's a strong non-rhotic heritage in your region>>

Definitely. That's evident in my Mary-merry-marry, hurry-furry, and serious-Sirius distinctions, which tend to be lost in rhotic NAE dialects.

<<Definitely. That's evident in my Mary-merry-marry, hurry-furry, and serious-Sirius distinctions, which tend to be lost in rhotic NAE dialects.>>

Yes, that's a clear legacy of non-rhotacism in your speech :)

<<My father is consistently rhotic, but my mother is a bit variable. In childhood she was totally non-rhotic (and with an extensive trap-bath split to boot). As she got older these features have lessened, but not disappeared. Though as I've started to teach her about phonology and dialects, she's been trying to reassert her regional accent by being more consistent with non-rhotacism and the trap-bath split. ;-) >>

Very interesting!

I know you were, just explaining why I take my stance :)

Quoth Kirk: <<Haha. According to my dialect "nawmal" would be pronounced ["nAm5=] :) Conversely, when I see amateur non-rhotic would-be spelling reformers insisting spellings like "talk" should be written "tork," I have to chuckle.>>

Yes, I wasn't trying to spell in a rhotic accent, I was spelling in non-rhotic! AFAIK, all non-rhotic accents pronounce "or" and "aw" alike before consonants, so it's perfectly okay! I expect though you'd hear the way I say "normal" as "nomal", and the way I say "nomal" as possibly even approaching "noumal" or "nimal", depending on how you pronounce those sounds. But they're pretty unlikely, you'd more likely hear it as a "not an English sound". As a guess.

Talked Tiffany: <<I don't see why it isn't just easier to pronounce it everywhere it's written than to have to figure out when to pronounce it versus when not to.>>

Well of course, you learn to speak before you learn to write, so it's an issue of figuring out when to write them or not... That's the difficult thing, but the English orthography is already hard, so it's not such a big deal. I mean, when I have to work out how to spell "bald", "bold", "mould", "vault", "cult", which all have the same stressed vowel, trying to work out when to spell "drawer" and when "draw" is no biggy... L should be stricken from the language, too much does it affect vowels; the Cockneys had a good idea some hundred years ago.

(Also, many non-rhotic speakers find it almost impossible to say things like "draw it" without putting in an extra R. It just happens automatically, you can't *not* do it, without practice.)

I think the phonology of a conservative (horse-hoarse distinguishing) ENE accent is really interesting.

father - [faD@]
bother - [bQD@]
cot, caught - [kQt]
horse - [hQs] (rhymes with "moss", "sauce")
hoarse - [hO@s]
normal - [nQml=] (rhymes with "Rommel")
four - [fO@]
for (stressed) - [fQ]
forty - [fQ4i] (rhymes with "bawdy", "body")

In its ENE form, the horse-hoarse distinction entails a corollary "corn-con" merger in which the "or" sound found in "corn" and "horse" merges with the basic "aw" and "short o" sounds, as [Q]. But this vowel remains distinct on the one side from the [O@] of "hoarse" and on the other side from the [a] of "father" and "star".

(Even among non-rhotic speakers, the horse-hoarse distinction is somewhat rare - my mother, for instance, pronounces them both as [hO@s] and loses the corollary corn-con merger. My late maternal grandfather, though, and one of my high school math teachers, both had great horse-hoarse distinguishing accents.)

Overall, I think all these features (father-bother distinction, cot-caught merger, horse-hoarse distinction, corn-con merger, trap-bath split) give the traditional ENE accent a really distinctive and unique phonology. I mean, where else could you find all those features in one place? ;-)

Felix - sounds like the British are in need of a bigger spelling reform than the Americans. Is there a higher rate of dyslexia in Britain? Well, we've already modified a few words...

<<Yes, I wasn't trying to spell in a rhotic accent, I was spelling in non-rhotic!>>

Oh, I know :)

<<AFAIK, all non-rhotic accents pronounce "or" and "aw" alike before consonants, so it's perfectly okay! I expect though you'd hear the way I say "normal" as "nomal", and the way I say "nomal" as possibly even approaching "noumal" or "nimal", depending on how you pronounce those sounds. But they're pretty unlikely, you'd more likely hear it as a "not an English sound". As a guess. >>

Oh yeah I generally have no problem understanding non-rhotic accents.

<<Yes, I wasn't trying to spell in a rhotic accent, I was spelling in non-rhotic! AFAIK, all non-rhotic accents pronounce "or" and "aw" alike before consonants, so it's perfectly okay! I expect though you'd hear the way I say "normal" as "nomal", and the way I say "nomal" as possibly even approaching "noumal" or "nimal", depending on how you pronounce those sounds. But they're pretty unlikely, you'd more likely hear it as a "not an English sound". As a guess. >>

Very true! Traditional Boston or Massachusetts accents are really interesting. The other day I was watching something on the Travel channel and they were talking about Boston and they talked with some locals--I really enjoyed listening to their accents.

<<Felix - sounds like the British are in need of a bigger spelling reform than the Americans. Is there a higher rate of dyslexia in Britain? Well, we've already modified a few words...>>

I'd say it's about equal for Americans. For instance, assume we're talking about a "cot-caught" merged American or Canadian (like you, me, Lazar, Uriel). We had to learn strictly by rote memorization that one spelling went with one and one went with the other despite them sounding the same (in our dialects). The same could be said for non-rhotic mergers. All dialects of English have some mergers and splits that aren't necessarily seen in other dialects or don't function the same way. I'd say in terms of dialects it's relatively equal in terms of the difficulty of learning English spelling--the thing is that which parts are intuitive and which must be learned by rote memorization vary according to your native dialect.

The 'er' sound (both rhotic and non-rhotic forms) is THE most difficult sound in the English language for foreigners (other than some Germans, Scandinavians, and Dutch) to imitate. For non-Germanic foreigners, this sound is IMPOSSIBLE to correctly pronounce whether they are aiming for the rhotic form, the non-rhotic form, or perhaps even something in between. Even those foreigners who speak otherwise excellent English and have very good pronunciation have trouble with this sound.

I know Kirk, one for another :) It's all equal in the end! Funny thing is, I was just thinking about the cot-caught merger while listening to a British broadcaster...

!@#$%^&*()_+, tell that to my Italian husband that has no problem with the -er sound. And seeing as the -er sound is pronounced like "eh/uh" in non-rhotic accents, there must be a lot of other words beyond the reach of those foreigners you're talking about. "Funny."

Yes, I've also known my share of nonnative English speakers who have the "er" sound down perfectly (whether their speech is rhotic or not).

<<I know Kirk, one for another :) It's all equal in the end! Funny thing is, I was just thinking about the cot-caught merger while listening to a British broadcaster...>>

Yeah, isn't it interesting how different they are for British speakers? Even for "cot-caught" non-merged Americans, the difference between the two vowels isn't as great as what you hear in "cot-caught" non-merged British speakers (which is basically all of them).

Isn't there such a merger in Ireland?