# R-coloured vowels in English



## berndf

*Moderator note: Split from quoted thread.
*


merquiades said:


> Preachers, teachers, bleachers have schwa + z, contrasting with preaches, bleaches, teaches with have I + z.


That surprises me. Given the native language indication in your profile I would have expected [-ɚz] rather than [-əz] for _-ers_.


----------



## bibax

I understood that merquiades agreed with my book based on the RP.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> That surprises me. Given the native language indication in your profile I would have expected [-ɚz] rather than [-əz] for _-ers_.



I listened to the differences on wikipedia. /ɚ/ has a strong r which I don't have here (before z).  However,  the ending -ers still does not rhyme with -es.  I would say that vowel (ɚ) in other words like nurse, curse, birds.  I don't know what the surprise is. For as much as I try I cannot imagine words like teachers and teaches rhyming. I am not saying some people don't do that though, just I haven't heard it.


----------



## bibax

However in your examples (nurse, curse, birds) the vowel is long (and stressed).

I also think that the US English (rhotic) pronunciation is not so different from the RP (non-rhotic) in the case of the ending -ers. Note that the -ers ending is sometimes spelled -az in the USA.


----------



## merquiades

bibax said:


> However in your examples (nurse, curse, birds) the vowel is long (and stressed).
> 
> I also think that the US English (rhotic) pronunciation is not so different from the RP (non-rhotic) in the case of the ending -er/-ers. Note that the -ers ending is sometimes spelled -az in the USA.



I agree with both of your points Bibax.  When I heard the pronunciation of /ɚ/, the first thing that came to mind was the vowel in nurse, which is the only reason I mentioned it.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> I would say that vowel (ɚ) in other words like nurse, curse, birds.


The vowel in these words is /ɝ/, the stressed counterpart of [ɚ].

EDIT: Does this sound natural to you? It is hard not to notice the R-colouring of the Schwa.


----------



## Dan2

bibax said:


> I also think that the US English (rhotic) pronunciation is not so different from the RP (non-rhotic) in the case of the ending -ers. Note that the -ers ending is sometimes spelled -az in the USA.


I can understand why you might think this, but based both on personal observation (having spent time in many parts of the US) and everything I've read, this is not correct.  There are two r-dropping (non-rhotic) areas in the US, the northeastern US (mainly eastern New England) and the coastal South.  In addition, colloquial speech among African Americans is non-rhotic.  Taken together, this represents a distinct minority of American speech, especially because younger speakers in the above areas are ofen r-retaining. (As for the spelling "-az" for "-ers", I've seen it used_  only_ to capture African-American vernacular.)

And the -ers ending in not an exception among otherwise r-retaining speakers.  The great majority of white Americans have [-ɚz] for -ers, not  [-əz]. [-əz] in a word like "teachers" is heard as distinctly dialectal to most Americans.

Thus there's a 3-way distinction:
1 - leases: [-ɪz] or [-ɨz]
2 - Lisa's: [-əz]
3 - leasers: [-ɚz] (the less-accurate transcription [-ərz] is also used)

These are subtle distinctions for non-natives, and I don't think learners of English have to be overly concerned about them, but this 3-way distinction is essential to a full description of American English.  Altho most Americans (and apparently the English also) have a strong sense that 1 and 2 are different, merging them in running speech is not terribly noticeable.  But to pronounce 3 as 1 or 2 sticks out like a sore thumb for most Americans (unless it's part of otherwise British- or Australian-sounding speech).


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> But to pronounce 3 as 1 or 2 sticks out like a sore thumb for most Americans (unless it's part of otherwise British- or Australian-sounding speech).


That is my observation as well. Apart from r-dropping dialects, there has to be some r-colouring of the Schwa, even if much fainter than the r-colouring in "bird" or "nurse", in order to recognize it as _-ers_.


----------



## clevermizo

berndf said:


> That surprises me. Given the native language indication in your profile I would have expected [-ɚz] rather than [-əz] for _-ers_.



Plenty of non-rhotic accents in the northeast  My dad has one. He definitely says [bɛntʃəz] for benches and benchers. Though I can't imagine him saying benchers, but he says [titʃəz] for teachers.

I for one do not say [bɛntʃɪz] and that sounds more other-side-of-the-pond to me. I don't exactly say [bɛntʃəz] either. It's something intermediate I guess. I also say [titʃɚz] unlike my fɑ:ðə  .


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> The vowel in these words is /ɝ/, the stressed counterpart of [ɚ].
> 
> EDIT: Does this sound natural to you? It is hard not to notice the R-colouring of the Schwa.



Okay, I'm going to try to explain this in my own way, so you'll have to bear with me since I never studied English linguistics.  You all are the experts so I don't dispute anything you have said. There is also a possibility my ears (I pronounce /i:rz/ not /i:rz/ nor /i:əz/ nor /i:z/) are failing me.  In the recording you posted I definitely hear the strong r colored vowel before /z/. I identify it with accents that are not mine.  It's Arkansas apparently.  That vowel sound with r I would pronounce in the word "nurse, girls" however.  I know that "The vowel in these words is /ɝ/, the stressed counterpart of [ɚ]" as you say, though I don't hear much of a difference in these recorded speakers.  For me there is more of a difference between the two. The unaccented er before z is fainter.  I don't consider myself non-rhotic (but I do think both are absolutely correct everywhere), the r before consonants especially z is just weaker than what you find in speakers who currl the r (to my ear).   
Lisa's leasers have leases.  I say "Li: səz li:sərz hæv li:sIz"


----------



## eli7

What's the difference in the pronunciation and the position of occurance of "ɚ" and "ɝ" and "eə".
I have found "eə" in "hair", "ɝ" in "urgent" and "ɚ" in "turn".
I see no difference in the words. All of them has the letter "r". Whats'e the difference and how should I know which transcription is correct?


----------



## Dan2

eli7 said:


> I have found "eə" in "hair", "ɝ" in "urgent" and "ɚ" in "turn".
> I see no difference in the words. All of them has the letter "r". Whats'e the difference and how should I know which transcription is correct?


Words with "air" ("air", "fair", hair", etc.) are pronounced [-eə] in Brit Eng and [-er] in Amer Eng.

Words with "ur" like "urgent" and "turn" are normally transcribed with [ɝ] in Amer Eng.  [ɚ] is not normally used in this case (because the vowels are stressed), but if you've seen it, it's just an alternative system.  Brit Eng has [ɜ] here.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Okay, I'm going to try to explain this in my own way, so you'll have to bear with me since I never studied English linguistics.  You all are the experts so I don't dispute anything you have said. There is also a possibility my ears (I pronounce /i:rz/ not /i:rz/ nor /i:əz/ nor /i:z/) are failing me.  In the recording you posted I definitely hear the strong r colored vowel before /z/. I identify it with accents that are not mine.  It's Arkansas apparently.  That vowel sound with r I would pronounce in the word "nurse, girls" however.  I know that "The vowel in these words is /ɝ/, the stressed counterpart of [ɚ]" as you say, though I don't hear much of a difference in these recorded speakers.  For me there is more of a difference between the two. The unaccented er before z is fainter.  I don't consider myself non-rhotic (but I do think both are absolutely correct everywhere), the r before consonants especially z is just weaker than what you find in speakers who currl the r (to my ear).
> Lisa's leasers have leases.  I say "Li: səz li:sərz hæv li:sIz"


Let me see, if I understood you correctly: You pronounce /ɚ/ non-retroflex and reduced, about like this?
View attachment teacher.mp3


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> Let me see, if I understood you correctly: You pronounce /ɚ/ non-retroflex and reduced, about like this?
> View attachment 9120



Yes, that's it more or less.


----------



## LilianaB

I agree with you, Merquiades, I do not think these words can ever rhyme, fully. I mean teachers and teaches.


----------



## eli7

berndf said:


> Let me see, if I understood you correctly: You pronounce /ɚ/ non-retroflex and reduced, about like this?
> View attachment 9120



So berndf, you mean that  /ɚ/ most of the time is appeared in the vicinity of /r/ and then /r/ is pronounced non-retroflex because of that?


----------



## berndf

eli7 said:


> So berndf, you mean that  /ɚ/ most of the time is appeared in the vicinity of /r/ and then /r/ is pronounced non-retroflex because of that?


No, I just interpreted the Merquiades' description of this own pronunciation in #10.

It is a a question of accent. Some varieties use non-retroflex /ɹ/ and some use retroflex /ɻ/. Though /ɻ/ is more frequent in American and /ɹ/ in Britain, you can hear both "r"s on both sides of the pond. Listen for word-initial "r"s as in _red, road, ring, read,_ etc. where it doesn't matter if some-one is a rhotic or a non-rhotic speaker. If you have a copy of any Harry Potter films handy, compare _r-_words pronounced by Hagrid who uses a West Country accent with retroflex /ɻ/s and any of the many RP speakers who use non-retroflex /ɹ/s.


----------



## eli7

I see. I still cannot recognize where to use  /ɚ/ in transcription.


----------



## berndf

Basically, any vowel + <r> in unstressed syllables fuse to /ɚ/ in rhotic accents. Some speakers keep _-ar_ and _-or_ separate (e.g. _lumbar, orator_). /ɚ/ does not occur in stressed syllables.


----------



## eli7

Thanks a million berndf.
Dan2 has said:


> Words with "ur" like "urgent" and "turn" are normally transcribed with [ɝ] in Amer Eng.


It's a good expalantion, but I checked the word "girl" and I found out that the transcription for "i" is  /ɝ/. Then, we cannot say that /ɝ/ occures with "ur". Could you please give me more explanation about the usage of /ɝ/?


----------



## merquiades

eli7 said:


> Thanks a million berndf.
> Dan2 has said:
> 
> It's a good expalantion, but I checked the word "girl" and I found out that the transcription for "i" is  /ɝ/. Then, we cannot say that /ɝ/ occures with "ur". Could you please give me more explanation about the usage of /ɝ/?



1) the sound only occurs in stressed syllables
2) it can be written ir, or, ur, er, ear + consonant or also it can end a word.  Crazy but true 

Girl, fir, whirl, stir, word, world, fur, burn, turn, nurse, curse, stern, fern. learn, earl, pearl
All these words rhyme

3) watch out!:  all words with ir, or, ur, er, ear need to be checked in the dictionary, because there are other sounds that also occur with these combinations
For, torn are with /ɔ/        fork and work do not rhyme
tear, fear are with   /i:/


----------



## berndf

eli7 said:


> It's a good expalantion, but I checked the word "girl" and I found out that the transcription for "i" is  /ɝ/. Then, we cannot say that /ɝ/ occures with "ur". Could you please give me more explanation about the usage of /ɝ/?


In stressed syllables after some short vowels, if not followed by another vowel: /ɪɹ/,/ʊɹ/,/ɛɹ/ > /ɝ/ for rhotic accents, but also (usually) for North American r-dropping accents. For other non-rhotic accents, /ɝ/ becomes /ɜ:/. I hope I didn't forget anything.


----------



## merquiades

berndf said:


> In stressed syllables after some short vowels, if not followed by another vowel: /ɪɹ/,/ʊɹ/,/ɛɹ/ > /ɝ/ for rhotic accents, but also (usually) for North American r-dropping accents. For other non-rhotic accents, /ɝ/ becomes /ɜ:/. I hope I didn't forget anything.



 Berndf,  Are /ɝ/ and /ɜ:/ considered short vowels?  I thought they were long and tense, because the r draws out the vowel, probably in non-rhotic speech too given the presence of :

Happy new year to you all!


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Berndf,  Are /ɝ/ and /ɜ:/ considered short vowels?  I thought they were long and tense, because the r draws out the vowel, probably in non-rhotic speech too given the presence of :


/ɝ/ and /ɜ:/ themselves are long. They replace combinations of an original short vowel and /ɹ/. Original long vowels + /ɹ/ are not replaced. That's why _beer _(originally /be:r/) or _beard _(originally /bɛ:rd/) are not pronounced */bɝ/ or */bɜ:/ or */bɝd/ or */bɜ:d/.



merquiades said:


> Happy new year to you all!


Happy new year!


----------



## Dan2

eli7 said:


> Dan2 has said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words with "ur" like "urgent" and "turn" are normally transcribed with [ɝ] in Amer Eng.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good expalantion, but I checked the word "girl" and I found out  that the transcription for "i" is  /ɝ/. Then, we cannot say that /ɝ/  occures with "ur".
Click to expand...

Yes we CAN say that - I didn't say that /ɝ/ occurs ONLY in the case of "ur".  (I mentioned "urgent" and "turn" because YOU asked about them.)  Merq's and berndf's subsequent posts are good summaries of the various spellings that give rise to this sound.

One more detail about where this phoneme occurs: Berndf said,


berndf said:


> In stressed syllables after some short vowels, if not followed by another vowel: /ɪɹ/,/ʊɹ/,/ɛɹ/ > /ɝ/ for rhotic accents,


The constraint that I've made red is correct for Brit Eng (I believe) and some Amer dialects, but the more common situation in the US is for [ɝ] to occur even if a vowel follows; for ex., "hurry" is [hɝri] or [hɝi].


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> The constraint that I've made red is correct for Brit Eng (I believe) and some Amer dialects, but the more common situation in the US is for [ɝ] to occur even if a vowel follows; for ex., "hurry" is [hɝri] or [hɝi].


I thought of that but it only occurs only in front of double-r. I doubt that the transcription /hɝi/ is adequate, I would only transcribe it /hɝɹi/. Another case is the word "current". Here only possible transcription is /'kɝ.ɹənt/ but there is definitely a pronunciation variant where the second "r" is mute but then the following /ə/ is mute as well and the word mono-syllabic: /kɝnt/.

Interestingly, in standard BrE, /-ɝɹ-/ has become /-ʌɹ-/. I believe in the NE US this occurs too, right?


----------



## merquiades

It's seems strange that the vowel in "her" and "hurry" could sound the same.  For me "her" is about like "fur", but "hurry" is the same as "hut" "rust" or "current".  The r is also doubled.  
Wouldn't this blur the pronunciation of several groups of words?  Carry, Curry, Cory would be /kɚ-ri:/


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> ..., but "hurry" is the same as "hut" "rust" or "current".  The r is also different.


This is so in BrE and *North Eeast* AmE:





berndf said:


> Interestingly, in standard BrE, /-ɝɹ-/ has become  /-ʌɹ-/. I believe in the NE US this occurs too, right?


But many other AmE accents pronounce _hurry, current_ and _curry_ with /ɝ/.





merquiades said:


> Wouldn't this blur the pronunciation of  several groups of words?  Carry, Curry, Cory would be  /kɚ-ri:/


Not in these examples as _-ar-_ and _-or-_ are not among the groups which fuse to _-ɝ-_ (see #22).


----------



## merquiades

Thanks.  I need to study what groups have fused and what haven't.  If I try to pronounce hurry, current and curry with /ɝ/ I need to make a pause before the r.


----------



## berndf

merquiades said:


> Thanks.  I need to study what groups have fused and what haven't.  If I try to pronounce hurry, current and curry with /ɝ/ I need to make a pause before the r.


I also sense a syllable break between /ɝ/ and /ɹ/ in _hurry_: /'h_ɝ._ɹ_i_/_._


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> I thought of that but it only occurs only in   front of double-r.


One example before single "r" that occurs to me is "courage".


berndf said:


> Another case is the word "current".   Here only possible transcription is /'cɝ.ɹənt/ but there is definitely a   pronunciation variant where the second "r" is mute but then the   following /ə/ is mute as well and the word mono-syllabic: /cɝnt/.


(/k/ in the transcriptions, right?).  I don't doubt that "current" can become monosyllabic [kɝnt] in fluent speech, but I certainly don't perceive the word as rhyming with "burnt" [bɝnt].  (Not sure what you mean by the second 'r' becoming "mute" - the double "rr" is only a spelling convention.)


berndf said:


> Interestingly, in standard BrE, /-ɝɹ-/ has become /-ʌɹ-/. I believe in the NE US this occurs too, right?


Wouldn't it be more likely that "hurry" (for ex.) has _always_ been /-ʌɹ-/ in Brit Eng, which is consistent with its being spelled with 'u', like "hut".
Yes, /-ʌɹ-/ would be expected in _parts_ of the Northeast; in some Southern dialects as well.



merquiades said:


> It's seems strange that the vowel in "her" and "hurry" could sound the same.  For me "her" is about like "fur", but "hurry" is the same as "hut" "rust" or "current".  The r is also doubled.
> Wouldn't this blur the pronunciation of several groups of words?  Carry, Curry, Cory would be /kɚ-ri:/


Berndf has covered this well.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> One example before single "r" that occurs to me is "courage".


Right. But the pronunciation is as if spelled _*courrage_. Already Walker transcribed it with double-r (ku2r-ri2dje)


Dan2 said:


> (/k/ in the transcriptions, right?).


Of course, thanks.


Dan2 said:


> (Not sure what you mean by the second 'r' becoming "mute" - the double "rr" is only a spelling convention.)


In modern English yes. But "rr" is normally etymological. _Hurry_, e.g., originally had a long "r". My point is that former long consonants have reflexes in modern English. In this case the reflex is that _hurry_ does not rhyme with _fury_.

My contention is that the long "r" in_ hurry_ split into an r-colouring of the "u" in the first syllable and an initial "r" in the second syllable.


Dan2 said:


> Wouldn't it be more likely that "hurry" (for ex.) has _always_ been /-ʌɹ-/ in Brit Eng, which is consistent with its being spelled with 'u', like "hut".


Right, but not only in BrE: The "BUT" vowel changed over the last 200 years. 200 years ago, when also standard BrE was still rhotic, the "BUT" vowel was higher (i.e. less "a-ish" and more "e-ish") than today which means that the sound we today transcribe /ɝ/ was essentially a rhoticised /ʌ/; I believe in some AmE dialects you can still sense that. Walker transcribed _b*u*t, h*u*rry and h*e*r_ with the same vowel (_but=bu2t, her=hu2r, hurry=hu2r're1_). The loss of the r-colouring in BrE non-rhotic accents and AmE r-dropping accents obviously allowed /ʌ/ to follow the shift of the /ʌ/ vowel while the continued r-colouring in other accents caused /ɝ/ to remain high (following "r" often inhibits lowering vowel shifts; e.g. the short "o" in _short _remained /ɔ/ and wasn't lowered to /ɒ/ as short "o"s were in other contexts). I suspect that the loss of rhoticity happened in stages in Britain with r-colouring of words like _bird_ where /ɝ/ became /ɜ:/ disappearing last. This is supported by NE AmE r-dropping accents where hurry is /'hʌ.ɹi/ and teacher /ti:tʃə/ but _bird _still /bɝd/ and not /bɜ:d/.


----------



## sashiman

What a great thread.  Made me pick up Wells, which reminded me that in some Southern dialects one hears neither "r" nor "r" coloration in words like "hurry"  (hurry up now y'hear?), worry, etc.  I won't pretend to be able to transcribe the above precisely, but thought it might be of interest to those who have the time (and expertise) to check out the reference.

a tidbit to whet your appetite 


> [S]outhern accents can appear more non-rhotic than any other accents of English anywhere.
> 
> (Wells,  _Accents of English 3: Beyond the British Isles_, Google Books,  p. 543 sqq. (visible))



(a bit off-topic, though replying to the question of etymological R in coda + R in onset)


----------



## merquiades

sashiman said:


> What a great thread.  Made me pick up Wells, which reminded me that in some Southern dialects one hears neither "r" nor "r" coloration in words like "hurry"  (hurry up now y'hear?), worry, etc.  I won't pretend to be able to transcribe the above precisely, but thought it might be of interest to those who have the time (and expertise) to check out the reference.
> 
> a tidbit to whet your appetite
> 
> 
> (a bit off-topic, though replying to the question of etymological R in coda + R in onset)



 Ah Sashiman, I almost fo'gawt. That brings ba-uck summah memo'ies of that sweet draawl you can he-ah in Savannah.  Ve'y good , saah.  It is hard to think how to transcribe that.


----------



## berndf

berndf said:


> merquiades said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't this blur the pronunciation of   several groups of words?  Carry, Curry, Cory would be  /kɚ-ri:/
> 
> 
> 
> Not in these examples as _-ar-_ and _-or-_ are not among the groups which fuse to _-ɝ-_ (see #22).
Click to expand...

A little PS to this one: The only exception I am aware of is _colonel _/'kɝ.nəl/. I am not quite sure why _-or-_ merged here. *Maybe* the original stress, when the spelling was _coronell, _was on the last syllable: /kɔ.rɔ'nɛl/ > /kər'nɛl/ > /kɚ'nɛl/ > /'kɝ.nəl/. But that is just a guess.


----------



## Dan2

berndf said:


> A little PS to this one: The only exception I am aware of is _colonel _/'kɝ.nəl/.


The *most* amazing thing about "colonel" is that it has *any* kind of /r/-sound at all, given its spelling.  (Can anyone think of any other word with /r/ or /ɝ/ or /ɚ/ that has no 'r' in the spelling?)  (But I do understand your point - the pronunciation comes from earlier "coronel".)

But there _are _other cases of "or + vowel" or "orr + vowel" becoming /ɝ/: "worry", "boro(ugh)", "thorough".



merquiades said:


> If I try to pronounce hurry, current and curry with /ɝ/ I need to make a pause before the r.


I meant to comment on this. I really think that this is because it's an unfamiliar pronunciation for you.  For those for whom pronunciation of these words with /ɝ/ is the norm, they're no different from any other /vowel-r-vowel/ word, and there's no sound break, perceptually or acoustically.

sashiman: Thanks for the reminder that in some Southern dialects, /r/ is lost even in /VrV/.  (Most Americans hear this as extremely dialectal.) (But that doesn't make it wrong. )


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> The *most* amazing thing about "colonel" is that it has *any* kind of /r/-sound at all, given its spelling.  (Can anyone think of any other word with /r/ or /ɝ/ or /ɚ/ that has no 'r' in the spelling?)  (But I do understand your point - the pronunciation comes from earlier "coronel".)


Just to make this explicit: _Coronel(l)_ is the original spelling in English taken from a variant spelling in 16th century French. The modern spelling with "l" is a later change (I think 18th century; by the end of that century the spelling with "r" doesn't occur in dictionaries any more), obviously for etymological reasons. The pronunciation was unaffected by this change.


----------



## berndf

Dan2 said:


> But there _are _other cases of "or + vowel" or "orr + vowel" becoming /ɝ/: "worry", "boro(ugh)", "thorough".


Right. Those are easier to explain because they are etymological "u"s ("worry" actually originally /y/ but that changed already in OE times to /ʊ/ or /ɪ/, depending on dialect).


----------



## merquiades

Dan2 said:


> The *most* amazing thing about "colonel" is that it has *any* kind of /r/-sound at all, given its spelling.  (Can anyone think of any other word with /r/ or /ɝ/ or /ɚ/ that has no 'r' in the spelling?)  (But I do understand your point - the pronunciation comes from earlier "coronel".)
> 
> But there _are _other cases of "or + vowel" or "orr + vowel" becoming /ɝ/: "worry", "boro(ugh)", "thorough".
> 
> 
> I meant to comment on this. I really think that this is because it's an unfamiliar pronunciation for you.  For those for whom pronunciation of these words with /ɝ/ is the norm, they're no different from any other /vowel-r-vowel/ word, and there's no sound break, perceptually or acoustically.
> 
> sashiman: Thanks for the reminder that in some Southern dialects, /r/ is lost even in /VrV/.  (Most Americans hear this as extremely dialectal.) (But that doesn't make it wrong. )



Hi Dan.  I can think of a few words with no r in spelling, but pronounced on occasion with a vocalic r, but it's dialectal, of course.  In western Pennsylvania (perhaps elsewhere) I have heard words like Washington, wash and toilet pronouced as Warshington, warsh and torlet.  I know you were referring to universal changes in the language though, and it's true colonel is probably the only example.

I realize now there are so many dialects that everyone hears what's not familiar to them as dialectal just because it's different.  For instance, I used to consider upper midwest dialect as one of the strongest because I had never visited there and was unfamilar with it.  Then I met people from Chicago, Wisconsin, Minnesota and now I don't hear it anymore.  They considered it the American norm.  This is probably the case with northerners and accents from the deep south as well (Well, I'm actually pretty sure of it)


----------



## Petro Kaljaro

Hello everybody,
I'm new in the forum, although I've spent months reading threads, just not contributing yet. Please correct any mistakes I should make. 
I know this is an old thread but I find it extremely interesting, and I some of the contributors should still be active in the forum, so...
I have some questions.

I read that:


berndf said:


> I thought of that but it only occurs only in front of double-r. I doubt that the transcription /hɝi/ is adequate, I would only transcribe it /hɝɹi/. Another case is the word "current". Here only possible transcription is /'kɝ.ɹənt/ but there is definitely a pronunciation variant where the second "r" is mute but then the following /ə/ is mute as well and the word mono-syllabic: /kɝnt/.


Does this apply for schwa as well? That is, is "better" pronounced, in AmE and rhotic dialects of BrE, /ˈbɛtɚ/ in "better than..." and /ˈbɛtəɹ/ in "better and..." (just as in most non-rhotic dialects)? I came across this thread because I was looking up the pronunciation of "their" in WordRef dictionary, and Random House Learner's Dictionary of American English lists as follows:
/ðɛr; _unstressed_ ðɚ/
but if my supposition were true, this entry would be wrong. It should be, instead:
/ðɛr; _unstressed before consonant_ ðɚ; _unstressed before vowel_ ðər/ (it uses r for ɹ)

I also wonder if all rhotic varieties of English have r-coloured vowels.
I've read that, originally, the sound "r" was rolled (and even long, as I learn now from berndf), so I infer r-coloured vowels weren't original and came at some time after the transition to /ɹ/. Maybe there are still areas where this is mantained? I.e. with /fɜɹm/ instead of /fɝm/ and /səɹˈpraɪz/ instead of /sɚˈpraɪz/?

Thank you in advance, and thank you for the interesting insights into this language.

Pierre


----------

