# pronunciation: silent r [non-rhotic accent]



## ~Just Me

Hello everyone! As you can see from my threads I'm learning English, exactly British English. Obviusly I know when "r" is silent (before consonants, at the end of a word or before a "e" in the middle of a word) but I'm in doubt with "w" and "y". I know "y" can be a vowel (when it's after a consonant, like in "to deny") and and a consonant when it starts a word (like in "yet") and "w" is always a consonant. Anyway, I'm in doubt just because they
sound to me like vowels, so I'd like to know how to read the "r" before them.
The question below is for people who don't pronounce "r", like British and Australian.
How do you pronounce these sentences?
1. How are you? --> I guess I haven't to pronounce the "r" in "are"
2. The car which parked there is a Ferr*ri. --> here I wouldn't pronounce the "r" in "car" for the same reasons.
Am i right?


----------



## JordyBro

Yes, you wouldn't pronounce the R in "are" or "car", but you would pronounce an R in "ferry".


----------



## e2efour

Some regions in Britain would pronounce the r, e.g. many parts of Scotland. There are, however, different ways of pronouncing the r.
But generally speaking, the r is not pronounced in _the car._


----------



## ~Just Me

No, you didn't get the question. Obviusly you know that if there's an "r" at the end of a word we don't read it, unless the word after starts with a vowel. For istance:
I have got a ca(r).
I have got  car and a scooter.---> the word after starts with a vowel, so we read it.
But, if the word after starts with a "y" o a "w"? I guess we should't read it, but "y" and "w" sound to me like vowels.
So, how do you read: 
1.how a(re) you?
Or
2.how aRe you?


----------



## JordyBro

If you were pronounced "oo" with no consonent sound an R might be pronounced in "are you", but you is pronounced with a consonent. 

An example of what you are looking for would be "this scooter is good" in which perhaps sometimes the R is pronounced, although as an Australian English speaker I don't pronounce an R in this kind of position much at all.

Your mixing up the concept of a vowel and consonent sound. Y is a consonent sound as in "you" and Y is a vowel as in "sky".


----------



## e2efour

i do not pronounce the r in _How are you?_ or _The car was expensive_, but I doin_ the car and a bicycle._

(My pronunciation is RP, which broadly means Standard Southern British English, although I have had a Scottish accent and also grew up in the north of England.)


----------



## london calling

e2efour said:


> I do not pronounce the r in _How are you?_ or _The car was expensive_, but I do in_ the car and a bicycle._
> 
> (My pronunciation is RP, which broadly means Standard Southern British English, although I have had a Scottish accent and also grew up in the north of England.)


I also speak Standard Southern British English and my pronunciation of the examples above is exactly the same as yours. I pronounce the r when the word which follows begins with a vowel.


----------



## Chasint

These are the vowels in English "a e i o u"

"w" is not a vowel.

"y" is sometimes called a semi-vowel because it can act both as a vowel and a consonant.

Examples

How are you?  (silent "r")

He is wary. (sounded "r")


----------



## ~Just Me

Just perfect!
I love British accent (London's exactly), I look forward to hearing my real name pronounced without "r"


----------



## -mack-

As said above, it has to do with whether the following sound is a vowel. Interestingly, many British (and other non-rhotic, like in Boston, Massachusetts) speakers take this a step farther and insert an _r_ sound even if there is no _r_ present between two vowel sounds, like, "I sawr a documentary about that." It's not "correct," but it's an interesting phenomenon to someone who pronounces all Rs (as I, a General American speaker, do).


----------



## Forero

[I will pretend to be non-rhotic for the purpose of this post.]

It is not spelling that determines whether a "linking _r_" will be inserted, but whether the next sound is a vowel:

_These are our cars._
_These are hour glasses._
_These are yttrium compounds._
_These are your cars._ [No _r_ sound]
_These are herbs._ [No _r_ sound]

(_Our_, _hour_, and _yttrium_ begin with vowel sounds. _Your_ and _herbs_ begin with consonant sounds.)


----------



## Chasint

Forero said:


> [I will pretend to be non-rhotic for the purpose of this post.]....
> _These are herbs._ [No _r_ sound]
> ... _Your_ and _herbs_ begin with consonant sounds.)




Note that there is some local variation in whether the 'h' in 'herbs' is sounded. In 'correct' BE, the 'h' is sounded. In some regional dialects it is not.

I don't know the case in AE but I have certainly heard 'erbs'  more often than 'herbs' from that side of the Atlantic.

-------------------------------------

If you examine written texts, the use of 'a' or 'an' by the author in front of 'herb', betrays their pronunciation of the word 'herb'. 

An author who writes "an herb" would say the 'r' in 'are herbs'.

An author who writes 'a herb' would not pronounce the 'r' in 'are herbs'.

This emphasises the point that the sound of the 'r' depends entirely on the pronunciation of surrounding sounds and not at all on the spelling of the words.


----------



## Forero

Biffo said:


> Note that there is some local variation in whether the 'h' in 'herbs' is sounded. In 'correct' BE, the 'h' is sounded. In some regional dialects it is not.
> 
> I don't know the case in AE but I have certainly heard 'erbs'  more often than 'herbs' from that side of the Atlantic.


It has always been "herbs" to me, but the people on television do seem to think it's "erbs". A better example might be: 

_These are horrible!_ [No _r_]


----------



## RM1(SS)

Forero said:


> It has always been "h[/U]erbs" to me, but the people on television do seem to think it's "erbs".


I don't believe I've ever heard anyone pronounce the 'h' in that word.


----------



## natkretep

Let's not get distracted into the pronunciation of _herb_. Here is an appropriate thread for that discussion:
H as in herb [pronunciation] (and other herb- words) 
In general, for a non-rhotic pronunciation, whether the word-final <r> is pronounced depends on whether the next sound is a vowel. And yes, /w/ and /j/ count as consonants in English. I would also say it depends on how smooth and connected the speech is. Looking at Forero's examples, I think I would slow down and hesitate in the third sentence:

_These are our cars.
These are hour glasses.
These are yttrium compounds.

__Yttrium _is not an everyday word for me, so I would pause before it, and that pause would mean that the /r/ is *not*​ pronounced.


----------



## Cagey

Here are two related threads that may be of interest:
Non-rhotic pronunciation without linking R's
Pronunciation: rhotic and non-rhotic: world, word, work, heard, earth​


----------



## Forero

Pauses are interesting too. An "uh"/"er" would cause _r_ to be pronounced, but a silence would not.

I also find it interesting how long a person can pause before continuing with something like "... erm, an apple" and still insert the _r_ sound.


----------



## Wordsmyth

~Just Me said:


> _[...] _people who don't pronounce "r", like British and Australian. _[...]_


 That's a very sweeping assumption, ~Just Me. Many BrE speakers are rhotic to a greater or lesser extent. By all means, go ahead and learn RP, or "standard southern" British English, but don't be surprised if you meet BrE speakers (particularly from South-West England, parts of Lancashire, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and even from some rural areas in otherwise non-rhotic regions) who pronounce the _r_. Some of them may not even have a regional accent, but still pronounce that _r_. 

If you have to work too hard at achieving non-rhotic speech (especially given the influence of your native language), you may end up sounding rather unnatural. If that were the case, my advice would be to stay rhotic: you'd be in the good company of plenty of well-spoken BrE speakers! 

Ws


----------



## sumelic

There are many varieties of British English natively spoken, but from what I've seen, the majority of the teaching materials and resources for learning British English are based on a non-rhotic accent. Because of this, I think ~Just Me should be capable of acquiring a non-rhotic sound system, given practice and examples to follow. The only way I can think of that it might sound more unnatural than a rhotic accent is if distinctions that native speakers make are collapsed, such as /ɔː/ vs. /ɒ/ or /ɛː/ vs. /ɛ/ or /ɛɪ/. And in any case, the English way of pronouncing the consonantal "r" sound is fairly different from Italian "r" sound, so there's some work to be done either way.


----------



## Wordsmyth

sumelic said:


> Because of this, I think ~Just Me should be capable of acquiring a non-rhotic sound system, given practice and examples to follow.


 I've nothing against that. As I said, "go ahead and learn RP". It's just that I don't feel it's essential to mastering British English as such. Retaining a rhotic pronunciation won't in itself mark someone as 'foreign'. Also it's not just a question of _rhotic_ or _non-rhotic_: there are all sorts of shades.

My comment about the risk of sounding unnatural was based on several experiences with learners of English. One striking example was a French girl who had been pushed into dropping the final _r_ in, for example, "doctor". No matter how she tried, she couldn't achieve the schwa at the end. It came out as "docto", "docta", "doctaw". (I'm avoiding IPA, because that suggests an accuracy that doesn't correspond exactly to what I heard). The result was very unnatural, even comical. However, when I suggested that she could pronounce the _r_ (albeit a French _r_), she pronounced "doctor" perfectly. As the second syllable was unstressed, her _r_ was faint (just as it is with some BrE speakers), but the fact that she wasn't having to force a totally silent _r_ enabled her to get the preceding vowel sound right. 

I agree that it might not work as easily with an Italian _r_, but even so a trace of an_ r_ might (and I only say 'might') in some cases sound more natural than a forced omission.

Ws


----------



## ~Just Me

However, don't consider my mother tongue, I'm perfectly able to pronounce British "r", I studied many pronunciation rules, because hearing English, spoken with Italian "r" or with "th" pronounced like a "d" made me feel blue...


----------



## Wordsmyth

~Just Me said:


> However, don't consider my mother tongue, I'm perfectly able to pronounce British "r" _[...]_


 OK, that's great. That means you can choose whethe*r* you want to pronounce it o*r* not.

Ws


----------



## JordyBro

Wordsmyth said:


> OK, that's great. That means you can choose whethe*r* you want to pronounce it o*r* not.
> 
> Ws



As far as I'm aware America and Britain (and my homeland : Australia) have seperate Rs, as in, they're written with different symbols in the IPA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alveolar_approximant   < this is the British/Australian, it's pronounced exactly like W except the tonges at the tip of the gum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroflex_approximant   < I'm fairly certain this is the typical American pronounciation, don't quote me on it.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Those articles that you linked to, JordyBro, make my point: that it's not a case of *the* British _r_ or *the* American_ r_.

The first one you quoted is *[ɹ]*, and the article cites its use in RP, Australian English and some American dialects, and notes its loss in non-rhotic varieties except before a vowel. 

The second one you quoted is *[ɻ]*, and the article cites its use in some West Country (England), American and Irish dialects. (It also occurs in some other parts of England and Wales, as I mentioned earlier.)

There's another one, the labiodental approximant *[ʋ]*, which is very common in the London area and a large part of South-East England.

And yet another, the alveolar flap *[ɾ]*, which occurs as an allophone of /r/ in older RP, Scottish, Irish, Liverpool and South African English.

And finally the trill *[r]*, either alveolar as in Scottish dialects or voiceless as in some parts of Wales.

As you can see, all five of those versions of /r/ exist in different varieties of British English — although *[ʋ]* and *[ɾ**]* don't occur at the end of a word or immediately before a consonant, so they aren't directly pertinent to ~Just Me's questions in post #1. 

Ws


----------



## Nino83

Wordsmyth said:


> And yet another, the alveolar flap *[ɾ]*, which occurs as an allophone of /r/ in older RP, Scottish, Irish, Liverpool and South African English.



I'd avoid using the alveolar flap, because in some word it could be confused with the US flapped/tapped "t", like in "hoary" and "haughty" [hɔːɾi]. 
I'd go for the alveolar or for the retroflex approximant.


----------



## Wordsmyth

I agree, Nino. I wouldn't recommend the alveolar flap to anyone who doesn't have it naturally (along with all the other characteristics of a particular accent in which it occurs); otherwise it would sound very contrived. 

I mentioned it, along with the others, only to make the point that there's not just one "British _r_". Even for ~Just Me's original examples (_r_ before _w_ or consonantal _y_) there are three distinct possibilities, of which the two you mentioned are the most likely to be encountered, and of which only one becomes silent in the positions where it's lost in non-rhotic speech.

Ws


----------



## Nino83

As Italian, I found easier the retroflex approximant, so I've choosen it. 
Moreover, I say "cat" with a British/Canadian [a] (instead of the American/Australian [æ]) and "cot" with a British/Canadian [ɔ]/[ɒ] rounded vowel (instead of the American unrounded [ɑ]), so, although I don't sound like a native (it is almost impossible  ), my (rhotic) way of speaking is similar to the Bristolian or (because of the flapped intervocalic unstressed "t") to the Canadian accent. 

As you just said, English accents offer a lot of possibilities and I've "choosen" the accents which were more "natural" to me.


----------



## Forero

Nino83 said:


> I'd avoid using the alveolar flap, because in some word it could be confused with the US flapped/tapped "t", like in "hoary" and "haughty" [hɔːɾi].
> I'd go for the alveolar or for the retroflex approximant.


I don't know the exact difference, but there is an audible difference between the AmE flapped/tapped "d" (and sometimes "t") and a flapped "r".

Anyone whose "r" is flapped in their native language can use their "r" as an "r" in English with no real risk of confusion. It may sound foreign, but it does not sound like a "t" or a "d" to us native AmE speakers.

What is problematic is a flapped "r" being used in place of a flapped/tapped "d" or "t". That can be confusing.


----------



## Nino83

Yes, they are different. 
The "r" is flapped (the movement is "back-towards", the tongue is curved) while the "t" is tapped (the movement is "down-upwards").


----------



## -mack-

Forero said:


> I don't know the exact difference, but there is an audible difference between the AmE flapped/tapped "d" (and sometimes "t") and a flapped "r".
> 
> Anyone whose "r" is flapped in their native language can use their "r" as an "r" in English with no real risk of confusion. It may sound foreign, but it does not sound like a "t" or a "d" to us native AmE speakers.
> 
> What is problematic is a flapped "r" being used in place of a flapped/tapped "d" or "t". That can be confusing.



I disagree. The flapped t and d are an alveolar flap, represented in IPA as [ɾ]. The reason we are not confused by a non-native speaker pronouncing /r/ with an alveolar flap is context. We are used to hearing flapped /r/ from people with accents (as the English /r/ sound is relatively rare globally) and the rest of the sentence can be used to distinguish between /t/, /d/, and /r/, even if they are all [ɾ]. I can't even think of any examples of ambiguity, although I'm sure they may exist.


----------



## Forero

Nino83 said:


> Yes, they are different.
> The "r" is flapped (the movement is "back-towards", the tongue is curved) while the "t" is tapped (the movement is "down-upwards").


And a larger part of the tongue actually touches the top-front of the mouth for tapped "d" than for flapped "r".


----------



## Nino83

Forero said:


> And a larger part of the tongue actually touches the top-front of the mouth for tapped "d" than for flapped "r".



Right, because the tongue is less curved for the "t". 



-mack- said:


> I disagree. The flapped t and d are an alveolar flap, represented in IPA as [ɾ].



I agree with you too. 
Although these consonants are (very little) different in production, they are almost equal in perception. 
As far as I know there aren't languages where these two phonems contrast each other, forming minimal pairs. 
I guess that also in the US, few people have [ɾ] in "car". 



-mack- said:


> The reason we are not confused by a non-native speaker pronouncing /r/ with an alveolar flap is context. We are used to hearing flapped /r/ from people with accents (as the English /r/ sound is relatively rare globally) and the rest of the sentence can be used to distinguish between /t/, /d/, and /r/, even if they are all [ɾ]. I can't even think of any examples of ambiguity, although I'm sure they may exist.



Very few. 
"hoary" and "haughty", "carry" and "catty" (for those who don't have the "marry/merry" merger), "generic" and "genetic", "jerry" and "jetty", "morrow" and "motto", "perry" and "petty", "porridge" and "pottage" (possibly for those who have the cot-caught merger).


----------



## Forero

Nino83 said:


> Although these consonants are (very little) different in production, they are almost equal in perception.


Almost, maybe, like short _i_ and long _e_, but different enough that they are never allophones.





> "hoary" and "haughty", "carry" and "catty" (for those who don't have the "marry/merry" merger), "generic" and "genetic", "jerry" and "jetty", "morrow" and "motto", "perry" and "petty", "porridge" and "pottage" (possibly for those who have the cot-caught merger).


Don't forget that a "t"-tap can be unvoiced, but a "d"-tap will always be voiced.

A person from India, learning to talk "American", may pronounce "muddy" just like "Murray" except for the tap vs. flap. Such "bilingual" speakers are the ones to listen to for minimal pairs. Look for a Scottish actor playing an American role, for example.

We may write "very" as "veddy" (not "vetty") to imitate a certain British way of pronouncing it, but it would just not do to actually pronounce it with the "d" of "Freddy" (or the "t" of "Betty").


----------



## Nino83

Forero said:


> Almost, maybe, like short _i_ and long _e_, but different enough that they are never allophones.Don't forget that a "t"-tap can be unvoiced, but a "d"-tap will always be voiced.



Excuse me, but the English varieties which have a "true" (phonetic) short [e] don't have [ɪ] (like Scottish "case" [kes] and "kiss" [kɘs], not [kɪs] and New Zealand "bet" [bet] and "bit" [bɘt] not [bɪt]). 



Forero said:


> Don't forget that a "t"-tap can be unvoiced, but a "d"-tap will always be voiced.



Are you sure? If it is so, why using the symbol [ɾ]?


----------



## Forero

Nino83 said:


> Excuse me, but the English varieties which have a "true" (phonetic) short [e] don't have [ɪ] (like Scottish "case" [kes] and "kiss" [kɘs], not [kɪs] and New Zealand "bet" [bet] and "bit" [bɘt] not [bɪt]).


I was talking about the _i_ in _bid_ and the _ea_ in _bead_. Where I live, they are phonemic. Non-natives tend to mix them up, but they are different.

I mentioned this pair of vowels only as a well-known example of sounds that are phonetically only a little different, but phonemically significantly different in English.





> Are you sure? If it is so, why using the symbol [ɾ]?


Yes, I am sure. This is the way we talk where I come from.

We normally pronounce "d" in a certain environment as [ɾ], never as [ɾ̥]; but we normally pronounce "t" in the same environment either as [ɾ̥], which allows us to distinguish between "t" and "d", or as [ɾ], which can sometimes lead to confusion but allows us to speak faster. And I am using [ɾ] here for a sound that has more in common with [d] than the [ɾ] does that is a variety of /r/.


----------



## Nino83

Forero said:


> I was talking about the _i_ in _bid_ and the _ea_ in _bead_.



Ah, long "i", ok. 

Thank you for the informations. I'll pay more attention to  [ɾ] and [ɾ̥].


----------



## alicip

Thank you very much for the post. May I ask you what happens with the "r" in the following words (in non-rhotic accents like RP): beware /bɪˈwɛə/, care /kɛə/, dare /dɛə/, there /ðɛə/, share /ʃɛə/, compare /kəmˈpɛə/, careful /ˈkɛəfʊl/, sphere /sfɪə/, figure /ˈfɪɡə/, and so on? In all of these cases the “r” is neither at the end of the word nor before consonant (rules that many BrE teachers teach for silent "r") – still, it is silent. Are there any rules that can be applied in these cases? What about: very, necessary, arbitrary, and so on - here the "r" is pronounced, but, even though in the middle of the word, there's no consonant before it (other rule BrE teachers teach for non-silent "r")? What's the rule here? What about the words: order, separate and the like? In "order", for example, the "r" is before a consonant - still, it is silent. On the other hand, in "separate" the "r" is in middle position, but there's no consonant before it - still, it is pronounced and therefore non-silent. What I am trying to learn is whether (or not) there are 2 separate rules for the “r”: one telling me when the “r” must be pronounced and one telling me when the “r” is silent. Am I missing something here? Thank you!


----------



## -mack-

For all intents and purposes they are, because they are terminating the syllable. In _beware, care, dare, there, share, compare, careful, sphere, figure, _the e is a "magic e" (that is, one that marks pronunciation of a previous vowel but has no sound of its own). Thus, the R is terminal and at the end of the word as far as phonetics. The e has no sound value except modifying a previous vowel.


----------



## Nino83

As -mack- said, the /e/ in _c*a*re_ indicates that the first vowel is [ɛ(ə)] and not [æ], like in _c*a*rry_, or [ɑː], like in _c*a*r_.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

But if the next word starts with a vowel a r is often introduced to make an elision. For example, beware /bɪˈwɛə/, rof the dog.


----------



## alicip

Thanks! Please have a look at my post #37 again - I'm still having trouble with the "r".


----------



## entangledbank

There is only one rule, and it is very simple: /r/ must be followed by a vowel. (A vowel is a _sound_, not a letter.)

_there_ /ðɛə/ cannot end in /r/, so it is not pronounced */ðɛər/. But _there is_ is /ðɛər ɪz/, because /r/ is followed by the vowel /ɪ/.

_separate_ /'sepərət/ has a vowel /ə/ following the /r/

_order_ /'ɔ:də/ cannot have an /r/ in either position where the letter R occurs. It cannot be */'ɔ:rdə/ because that /r/ would be followed by a consonant, not a vowel. It cannot be */'ɔ:dər/ because, as with _there_, the /r/ would be final. Also as with _there_, _order of_ is /'ɔ:dər əv/ because now the /r/ is followed by a vowel, so it can be pronounced.


----------



## Nino83

entangledbank said:


> (A vowel is a *sound*, not a letter.)


@alicip  the most important thing to know is if the letter "e" is pronounced or if it is a silent "e". In absolute final position the letter "e" is almost always silent, so the word ends with a consonant (I said "almost" because there are loanwords like the Japanese word _sak*e*_ ['sɑːki], where the final "e" is pronounced, but in English words the letter "e", in absolute final position, indicates that the preceding vowel is long, like in _s*a*ke_ [seɪk]).


----------



## alicip

entangledbank said:


> There is only one rule, and it is very simple: /r/ must be followed by a vowel. (A vowel is a _sound_, not a letter.)
> 
> _there_ /ðɛə/ cannot end in /r/, so it is not pronounced */ðɛər/. But _there is_ is /ðɛər ɪz/, because /r/ is followed by the vowel /ɪ/.
> 
> _separate_ /'sepərət/ has a vowel /ə/ following the /r/
> 
> _order_ /'ɔ:də/ cannot have an /r/ in either position where the letter R occurs. It cannot be */'ɔ:rdə/ because that /r/ would be followed by a consonant, not a vowel. It cannot be */'ɔ:dər/ because, as with _there_, the /r/ would be final. Also as with _there_, _order of_ is /'ɔ:dər əv/ because now the /r/ is followed by a vowel, so it can be pronounced.



Thank you all. So, what you are saying is that when "r" is followed by a vowel sound it is pronounced and that in every other case it is silent? Let me see if I got it:

1. "r" is silent in the following words: _car, star, sister, mother, word, person, bird_ (/kɑː/, /stɑː/, /ˈsɪstə/, /ˈmʌðə/, /wɜːd/, /ˈpɜːsn/, /bɜːd/)  because it is not followed by a vowel sound.

2. "r" is pronounced in the following words: _read, write, red, Rome, grass, green, very, separate _(/riːd/, /raɪt/, /rɛd/, /rəʊm/, /grɑːs/, /griːn/, /ˈvɛri/, _/'_sepərət_/_) and also in  _berry, carry, arrange (_ˈ/bɛri/, /ˈkæri/, /əˈreɪnʤ/_)_ because it is followed by a vowel sound. 

Or, to sum up :  */r/* (the phoneme, i.e. the sound as in *red*) occurs *only before a vowel phoneme* (in British RP and non-rhotic accents of English). In every other case it is silent.


----------



## -mack-

alicip said:


> Thank you all. So, what you are saying is that when "r" is followed by a vowel sound it is pronounced and that in every other case it is silent? Let me see if I got it:
> 
> 1. "r" is silent in the following words: _car, star, sister, mother, word, person, bird_ (/kɑː/, /stɑː/, /ˈsɪstə/, /ˈmʌðə/, /wɜːd/, /ˈpɜːsn/, /bɜːd/) because it is not followed by a vowel sound.
> 
> 2. "r" is pronounced in the following words: _read, write, red, Rome, grass, green, very, separate _(/riːd/, /raɪt/, /rɛd/, /rəʊm/, /grɑːs/, /griːn/, /ˈvɛri/, _/'_sepərət_/_) and also in  _berry, carry, arrange (_ˈ/bɛri/, /ˈkæri/, /əˈreɪnʤ/_)_ because it is followed by a vowel sound.
> 
> Or, to sum up :  */r/* (the phoneme, i.e. the sound as in *red*) occurs *only before a vowel phoneme* (in British RP and non-rhotic accents of English). In every other case it is silent.



Correct. What matters is the actual _sound_. However, non-rhotic speakers *will* pronounce it if the next word begins with a vowel sound, so the context matters as well.

[Of course, in General American English, it is always pronounced (/kɑːɹ/, /ˈsɪstəɹ/, etc.), and Califorrrrnian English will draw it out even more.]


----------



## cando

It could be slightly misleading to say "r is silent before a consonant". It is true, but it also has an effect on a preceding vowel. The r does not disappear completely so that words can be read as if there was no r in the word. For example, "person" is not read as "peson", "corpus" is not "copus", and "mirth" is not "mith". The r lengthens, flattens and rounds off the preceding vowel.


----------



## alicip

-mack- said:


> Correct. What matters is the actual _sound_. However, non-rhotic speakers *will* pronounce it if the next word begins with a vowel sound, so the context matters as well.
> 
> [Of course, in General American English, it is always pronounced (/kɑːɹ/, /ˈsɪstəɹ/, etc.), and Califorrrrnian English will draw it out even more.]



Thanks. I know about the "linking r" and "intrusive r" phenomena.  
The first occurs in: _care about_ (/keər əbaʊt/), _near enough_ (/nɪər ɪˈnʌf/), _war and peace_ (/wɔːr ənd piːs/), where the "r" sound serves to link 2 otherwise consecutive vowel sounds. Of course this happens only when there is NO pause between them in pronunciation. It happens with isolated words too as in: _caring, daring, stirring_ (/ˈkeərɪŋ/, /ˈdeərɪŋ/, /ˈstɜːrɪŋ/), all of which in their base form would have the silent "r" in pronunciation as in: _care, dare, stir _(/keə/, /deə/, /stɜː/).


----------



## wandle

My practice, having grown up in England with an Irish mother and a Scottish father and copied their modified but constant pronunciation of 'R', is: always pronounce the 'R' when it is present, but without emphasising it, and never put it in when it is not there (never say 'droring' for 'drawing' or 'Grandmar eats' for 'Grandma eats').

Both these inserted 'R's can be heard in southern England, even among supposedly educated RP speakers. This fact seems to me to show that even in southern England the avoidance of 'R' is somewhat artificial.

Another indication of that is the tendency among southern English RP speakers to replace an initial 'R' with a 'W'. That seems to show that the non-pronunciation of 'R' is a taught practice, which has resulted in its being unconsciously over-applied.


----------



## sound shift

wandle said:


> This fact seems to me to show that even in southern England the avoidance of 'R' is somewhat artificial.


I have to disagree. I grew up in southern England, and nobody ever discussed the issue with me. I just copied the speech of my parents and the people around me. Lack of rhoticity is no more 'artificial' than any other feature of my pronunciation.


----------



## wandle

sound shift said:


> Lack of rhoticity is no more 'artificial' than any other feature of my pronunciation.


Have you observed the two phenomena mentioned (inappropriate insertion of 'R' and initial 'W'' for 'R')?


----------



## sound shift

wandle said:


> Have you observed the two phenomena mentioned (inappropriate insertion of 'R' and initial 'W'' for 'R')?


Yes, but I don't think either indicates that lack of rhoticity is 'a taught practice'. And then there are those people who exhibit neither phenomenon but are non-rhotic nevertheless. I think you said in another thread that your father told you that you should pronounce every 'r', but I'm convinced that the vast majority of us have never been told whether we should speak in a rhotic way or not: I've never heard of it being an issue with anyone I've ever known, and I've never heard a child struggle to speak non-rhotically.


----------



## wandle

sound shift said:


> I think you said in another thread that your father told you that you should pronounce every 'r'


Correct, but that is not the reason for my speculation.
I have often heard children say. for example, 'wabbit' and I have also heard BBC announcers confuse 'perpetrate' with 'perpetuate', not to mention those who say 'loy' for 'lorry', 'terrist' for 'terrorist' and perpetrate the intrusive 'R'.

I once heard Peter Ustinov talking about 'that little room high up in the BBC where they train people to say 'W' instead of 'R''. Where does that 'W' really come from?


----------



## kentix

What's an example where 'w' is substituted for 'r'?

Meanwhile, I bow down to the American 'r' in all its glory.


----------



## cando

The use of a w sound instead of an r is regarded as a mild speech impediment which some people display. It is not a tendency or occasional habit among general non-rhotic dialect speakers. It may be something that is acquired by imitation within families, but I know of examples where an individual child simply never acquires the ability to pronounce even the non-rhotic r.

The fact that r is sometimes pronounced between words where that involves two vowels is not a symptom of wilful choice or affectation with regard to not pronouncing r in other circumstances, it is a sign that the r is actually there when supposedly silent, it is just very slight, and it then becomes a bit more pronounced between two vowels. There is no conscious ‘avoidance’ going on, just instinctive dialectic variability.


----------



## Nino83

This is called R-labialization and it is a well known trait of southeastern accents (of England), in IPA [ʋ].
Anyway, the English (American, British, Canadian, Australian and so on) "r" is clearly labialized, [ɹ̠ʷ], expecially in initial position.


----------



## JulianStuart

cando said:


> The use of a w sound instead of an r is regarded as a mild speech impediment which some people display.


I think this is true in AE and BE (I recall a "wascawy wabbit" from US cartoons, for example!)



cando said:


> The fact that r is sometimes pronounced between words where that involves two vowels is not a symptom of wilful choice or affectation with regard to not pronouncing r in other circumstances, it is a sign that the r is actually there when supposedly silent, it is just very slight, and it then becomes a bit more pronounced between two vowels. There is no conscious ‘avoidance’ going on, just instinctive dialectic variability.


I perpetrate and perpetuate an occasional mild pronunciation: Intrusive 'r'   Both r-omission and r-insertion are "learnt" from our surroundings as we grow up hearing it as the way to communicate. In one of the other threads I joked that the silent r's are replaced in the language by the intrusive r, so no net gain/loss

I have never heard "loy" for "lorry" but terr(or)ist, deteri(or)ate et seem to occur with equal frequency in AE (rhotic) and those BE that are non-rhotic. Just too many r's in a row for the comfort of many!.
(I have started to hear aw-ight instead of all right but from rhotic speakers - so figure that!)


----------



## velisarius

wandle said:


> the tendency among southern English RP speakers to replace an initial 'R' with a 'W'.



As in Monty Python's "Welease Wodger"?  That's an exaggerated upper-class lisp, and not a feature of everyday southern English speech.

Many of my classmates at school tended to the "drawring" pronunciation, but our teachers tried to drum it out of us. 



> non-pronunciation of 'R' is a taught practice


 What a strange idea.


----------



## Nino83

If I had to guess how the phenomenon of the intrusive "r" developed, I'd say that it is due to the fact that [ɔr] merged with [ɔː] and [ɚ] with [ə], so there is no difference between _lore_ and _law_ or _Peter_ and _pita_. Then we have _lawr and order_, like _lore and folklore_, _pitar and salad_, like _Peter and Laura_.


----------



## -mack-

The American "a'ight" is from AAVE which is a non-rhotic American dialect. Otherwise, if any sound is deleted it is the L. The R is non-negotiable in General American. ("arright" or "aw-right"). "Awight" is a speech impediment. (And yes, we totally own the letter R like nobody else ) I'm not sure about lorry, because we don't have that word, haha. 

The intrusive R is present in the non-rhotic New England accent (particularly in Boston), much as in British dialects.


----------



## wandle

velisarius said:


> What a strange idea.


It is not strange to teach pronunciation. It happens all the time, at home and school.


----------

