# pronunciation: "er" in American English



## BlackRaven

Hello 

I have a rather simple question. If you look up the word "murderer" in an American dictionary, it tells you that the correct pronunciation is mur-der-er. That obviously doesn't work for people who don't pronounce r's at the end of words (in words such as center, murder, either etc.). So I guess a British speaker would say mur-duh-rer instead. 

What about the verb moderate? Is it mah-der-ate or mah-duh-rate for those Americans who have a rhotic accent? 

Thanks for the help in advance.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

I'm not American but I do have a rhotic accent. I would pronounce the verb as "to _mod-e-rate_", the adjective however would be pronounced as "_mod-er-at'_"


----------



## BlackRaven

When you add the -ing ending to the verb "torture", does it  become tor-chuh-ring (I'm pretty sure that's what a person with a non-rhotic accent would say) or "cher" stays "cher" and it's tor-cher-ing?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

BlackRaven said:


> When you add the -ing ending to the verb "torture", does it  become tor-chuh-ring (I'm pretty sure that's what a person with a non-rhotic accent would say) or "cher" stays "cher" and it's tor-cher-ing?



I would say it as "tor-chur-ing".


----------



## BlackRaven

What about natural? 

na-tur-al or na-tu-ral?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

BlackRaven said:


> What about natural?
> 
> na-tur-al or na-tu-ral?



The first, most definitely. It may differ for other dialects however.


----------



## BlackRaven

Yeah. I wonder why Merriam-Webster prefers the second being an American dictionary. I e-mailed them about this.


----------



## pvraes

BlackRaven said:


> Hello
> 
> I have a rather simple question. If you look up the word "murderer" in an American dictionary, it tells you that the correct pronunciation is mur-der-er. That obviously doesn't work for people who don't pronounce r's at the end of words (in words such as center, murder, either etc.). So I guess a British speaker would say mur-duh-rer instead.
> 
> What about the verb moderate? Is it mah-der-ate or mah-duh-rate for those Americans who have a rhotic accent?
> 
> Thanks for the help in advance.


 
Hello: The problem is quite simple. Speakers with a rhotic accent pronounce the "r" in every position, while those, like most of British speakers, only pronounce the "r" when it is followed by a vowel, within a word or between two of them.

So, "four" will be [fo:], but, if it is followed by a vowel as in "four arms", it will be [fo:r a:mz]. Here again the "r" of "arm" doesn't soundbut it does the "r" of "four"

In your example, "murder" will be [me:da], but "murderer" will be [me:dara]


----------



## JamesM

Some of these get very tricky, BlackRaven. If you are thinking of "tu" as the French "tu" or the "tu" in "tutor", this is not the sound I would make.

It's more like "na-chuh-rull" or, when speaking quickly, "natchrull".

Have you tried our dictionary? There are recorded examples of US and UK pronunciations for many words. Natural is one of them. Next to the little speaker symbol you should see an underlined US and UK*. *Click on the US and the UK to hear the pronunciations.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Pvraes is completely correct, that's exactly how I would say those words!


----------



## entangledbank

This seems to miss the point of the rhotic/non-rhotic difference. In a non-rhotic accent you can't have [r] in the _end_ of a syllable. A letter <r> between vowels belongs to the following syllable, regardless of morphology - it's at the beginning of a syllable, so pronounced in all accents:

murderer = ['mɜ:dǝrǝ]. This is divided into syllables as ['mɜ: . dǝ . rǝ]. The <r> at the end of the element <murder> etymologically belongs with the preceding syllable, but phonetically is the beginning of the next syllable.

With that, or with a word like 'moderate', you don't have a choice of syllabification. You can't put the <r> with the preceding syllable in some words but the following syllable in other words. One consonant between two vowels belongs with the following vowel. So in both a rhotic and a non-rhotic accent, 'moderate', is [mɒ . dǝ . reɪt] (verb), [mɒ . dǝ . rǝt] (adjective). No difference. (Or in an accent like AE that lacks the [ɒ] sound, the first syllable is [mɑ:].)

So torturing = ['tɔ:tʃǝrɪŋ]. No choice about which syllable the [r] belongs to. We all syllabify it the same: ['tɔ: (r) . tʃǝ . rɪŋ].


----------



## BlackRaven

JamesM said:


> Some of these get very tricky, BlackRaven. If you are thinking of "tu" as the French "tu" or the "tu" in "tutor", this is not the sound I would make.
> 
> It's more like "na-chuh-rull" or, when speaking quickly, "natchrull".
> 
> Have you tried our dictionary? There are recorded examples of US and UK pronunciations for many words. Natural is one of them. Next to the little speaker symbol you should see an underlined US and UK*. *Click on the US and the UK to hear the pronunciations.


Nope, by "tu" I didn't mean "too".  That would sound... wrong. 

How do you say the words I mentioned above?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

JamesM said:


> It's more like "na-chuh-rull" or, when speaking quickly, "natchrull".



This is the pronunciation I was thinking of.

Another example, non-rhotic speakers would not pronounce the final r in _car_, giving something like "cah" (looks more like what someone from Boston would say but you get the point).

As someone who speaks a rhotic dialect, I would say car with emphasis on the final R.


----------



## pvraes

Pedro y La Torre said:


> This is the pronunciation I was thinking of.
> 
> Another example, non-rhotic speakers would not pronounce the final r in _car_, giving something like "cah" (looks more like what someone from Boston would say but you get the point).
> 
> As someone whose dialect is rhotic, I would say car with emphasis on the final R.


 
OK, but you'll agree that in "that car is mine" a non-rhotic speaker would pronounce the "r" and would sound something like "that caris ..."


----------



## entangledbank

Syllable boundaries cross word boundaries. In 'that car is mine' the sounds are /ka:rɪz/. The usual rules of syllabification divide this into /ka: . rɪz/ - the /r/ belongs to the beginning of the syllable, and is therefore pronounced: [ka: . rɪz].


----------



## pvraes

entangledbank said:


> Syllable boundaries cross word boundaries. In 'that car is mine' the sounds are /ka:rɪz/. The usual rules of syllabification divide this into /ka: . rɪz/ - the /r/ belongs to the beginning of the syllable, and is therefore pronounced: [ka: . rɪz].


 
Thank you _*entangledbank.*_ The matter of syllabification is fundamental, and with your explanation it becomes clear.


----------



## JamesM

BlackRaven said:


> Nope, by "tu" I didn't mean "too".  That would sound... wrong.
> 
> How do you say the words I mentioned above?


 

Go to this site:

http://www.research.att.com/~ttsweb/tts/demo.php

Select "Mike - US English" for the voice and type in "This is the way I say natural." This is very close to the way I say "natural".

I do not pronounce it the way "Rich - US English" does and definitely not like "Claire - US English". There are many variations in US English accents and pronunciation. They are not as pronounced, probably, as those in UK English, but we have quite a bit of variation.

"Mike" is fairly close to my accent other than on the words "four arms".


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

pvraes said:


> OK, but you'll agree that in "that car is mine" a non-rhotic speaker would pronounce the "r" and would sound something like "that caris ..."



As entangledbank said, there are other factors which play into it; in a non-rhotic accent (I'm thinking of RP) the R would indeed be pronounced however it would still be a good deal softer than a rhotic accent.


----------



## BlackRaven

JamesM said:


> Go to this site:
> 
> http://www.research.att.com/~ttsweb/tts/demo.php
> 
> Select "Mike - US English" for the voice and type in "This is the way I say natural." This is very close to the way I say "natural".
> 
> I do not pronounce it the way "Rich - US English" does and definitely not like "Claire - US English". There are many variations in US English accents and pronunciation. They are not as pronounced, probably, as those in UK English, but we have quite a bit of variation.
> 
> "Mike" is fairly close to my accent other than on the words "four arms".


Yes, that's how I would have said it. I just wasn't sure because I never actually asked anyone and I was a bit surprised to have read Pedro y La Torre's messages. 

"murderer" has got to be an exception to this rule then. If it's mur-der-er and not mur-duh-rer. You can barely hear the difference, but I think I would have said mur-duh-rer.


----------



## Imber Ranae

BlackRaven said:


> Yes, that's how I would have said it. I just wasn't sure because I never actually asked anyone and I was a bit surprised to have read Pedro y La Torre's messages.
> 
> "murderer" has got to be an exception to this rule then. If it's mur-der-er and not mur-duh-rer. You can barely hear the difference, but I think I would have said mur-duh-rer.



I'm not sure I understand you. In what way is it an exception? Do you mean in rhotic dialects or non-rhotic?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

BlackRaven said:


> Yes, that's how I would have said it. I just wasn't sure because I never actually asked anyone and I was a bit surprised to have read Pedro y La Torre's messages.



In what way were you surprised? I believe everything I stated was consistent with others who have rhotic accents, no?



BlackRaven said:


> "murderer" has got to be an exception to this rule then. If it's mur-der-er and not mur-duh-rer. You can barely hear the difference, but I think I would have said mur-duh-rer.



Both could be said depending on accent or personal preference, there isn't that much difference from what I can see.


----------



## BlackRaven

Pedro y La Torre said:


> In what way were you surprised? I believe everything I stated was consistent with others who have rhotic accents, no?


You first chose na-chur-ul. James chose na-chuh-rul and you agreed with him. I would have said it James' way so I was naturally a bit surprised to have read your initial response. I guess.


----------



## panjandrum

There is plenty more chat about rhotic/non-rhotic pronunciation in the threads listed at:
rhotic


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

BlackRaven said:


> You first chose na-chur-ul. James chose na-chuh-rul and you agreed with him. I would have said it James' way so I was naturally a bit surprised to have read your initial response. I guess.


 
 Well, from what I can see there is very little different between the two, but in any case the pronunciation that James stated was close to the one I was thinking of in my head. When I get around to mastering the IPA I will use that, apologies.

If you listen to Lauren here, that is similar to the way I say it.


----------



## Imber Ranae

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Well, from what I can see there is very little different between the two, but in any case the pronunciation that James stated was close to the one I was thinking of in my head. When I get around to mastering the IPA I will use that, apologies.
> 
> If you listen to Lauren here, that is similar to the way I say it.



As a speaker of a rhotic dialect, you would naturally (sorry!) chose _na-chur-ul_ or _na-chrul_ as his pronunciation for the word "natural", would you not? Non-rhotic requires _na-chuh-rul_.


----------



## BlackRaven

Imber Ranae said:


> As a speaker of a rhotic dialect, you would naturally (sorry!) chose _na-chur-ul_ or _na-chrul_ as his pronunciation for the word "natural", would you not? Non-rhotic requires _na-chuh-rul_.


Not neccesarily, have a look at what James posted.


----------



## Alxmrphi

BlackRaven, please can you quote what you're referring to (I can't find what James posted that you are referring to, and am not sure what you are referring to, I just think it would be more helpful to other readers as well)

I thought American English had both rhotic and non-rhotic and James didn't mention anything about which way he spoke so I'm struggling to see what the reference is.


----------



## JulianStuart

_na-chur-ul   vs. __na-chuh-rul_

I have a non-rhotic accent and these seem to me to be just different ways of _transcribing syllabification_ but signify the _same_ pronunciation of the word natural.  They both end in a pronounced r followed by a schwa and an l.  If one were pronouncing just the middle syllable in isolation, then the rhotic vs. non-rhotic difference would show up.  Did I miss something here?


----------



## BlackRaven

Alxmrphi said:


> BlackRaven, please can you quote what you're referring to (I can't find what James posted that you are referring to, and am not sure what you are referring to, I just think it would be more helpful to other readers as well)
> 
> I thought American English had both rhotic and non-rhotic and James didn't mention anything about which way he spoke so I'm struggling to see what the reference is.


Oh, sorry. I have heard James speak before and he has a typical, rhotic American accent.


----------



## BlackRaven

JulianStuart said:


> _na-chur-ul   vs. __na-chuh-rul_
> 
> I have a non-rhotic accent and these seem to me to be just different ways of _transcribing syllabification_ but signify the _same_ pronunciation of the word natural.  They both end in a pronounced r followed by a schwa and an l.  If one were pronouncing just the middle syllable in isolation, then the rhotic vs. non-rhotic difference would show up.  Did I miss something here?


na-chur-ul only has one "uh" sound while na-chuh-rul has two.


----------



## Imber Ranae

Hmm, going by this thread it seems rhotic speakers are uncertain as to which syllable the 'r' really belongs to. Would any non-rhotic speakers actually transcribe it as "nach-ur-ul", though? I wouldn't expect so. I suspect the difference is in their certainty.


----------



## JamesM

If you asked me to say "naturally" at a glacial pace, it would come out "na-chew-rul-lee", not "na-chur-uhl-lee". I can't say that that's the correct pronunciation. I'm only reporting what I would say in my typically rhotic, west coast American accent. 

p.s.  Did you try the text-to-speech demo site I mentioned above?  One spoken word can be worth hundreds of written ones.


----------



## JulianStuart

BlackRaven said:


> na-ch*u*r-*u*l only has one "uh" sound while na-ch*u*h-r*u*l has two.


Then I don't understand the distinction in the transcription as it's written.  Both *u* sounds in both versions sound like schwas to me    (cf. churlish is a schwa to me, followed by the l, while a rhotic speaker would include the r; that's how I see the world)
I don't approach the chew sound that James mentions for the middle syllable, it's more likely to disappear than go in that direction! i.e., to  Nach'r_uh_ly where the _uh_ is the schwa.


----------



## natkretep

JulianStuart said:


> _na-chur-ul   vs. __na-chuh-rul_
> 
> I have a non-rhotic accent and these seem to me to be just different ways of _transcribing syllabification_ but signify the _same_ pronunciation of the word natural.  They both end in a pronounced r followed by a schwa and an l.  If one were pronouncing just the middle syllable in isolation, then the rhotic vs. non-rhotic difference would show up.  Did I miss something here?



Like, JS, I'm wondering what the issue is because the /r/ shows up whether you think of *na-chur-ul* or *na-chuh-rul*. Unless *ur* is meant to denote what is called an r-coloured vowel where the /r/ sound almost functions like a syllable.


----------



## JamesM

To me, "chur" has the sound of the first syllable in "churlish".  That sound is not at all like "chuh" to me.


----------



## Forero

Unfortunately, I have not gotten my computer to let me type IPA symbols, but I can copy and paste from various web pages.

I am from Arkansas, south and slightly east of the center of the contiguous 48 states of the U.S. As regards _r_ sounds, my pronunciation is fairly similar to that of the Midwest, as in Chicago, but I have a decided southern accent: drawl plus twang.

The end of _center_, _murder_, and _either_ is the _r_-colored schwa sound [ɚ]. The first syllable of _murder_ for me is [mɝ] (with _r_ coloring).
In the last two syllables of _murderer_, I have two [ɚ] sounds separated by an [ɹ].

My pronunciation of _moderate_, the verb or the adjective/noun, has one [ɚ] but no appreciable [ɹ] since the next sound is not another [ɚ].

The first vowel of _torture_ I pronounce with a closer _o_ than my _aw_ of _raw_, due to the presence of _r_ coloring: [ˈtʰoɚtʃɚ]. The first [ɚ] is an offglide. For _torturing_, I just add the _-ing_ with no intervening consonant. The word _natural_ has the same [tʃɚ] followed by a syllabic dark _l_ [ɫ]. My _torturing_ and _natural_ are always three syllables.

An interesting minimal pair in my dialect is _oral_ [ˈoɚɫ] vs. _aural_ ['ɒɹɫ]. The difference between the [ɚ] offglide and consonantal [ɹ] is minimal, but the vowel is quite different ([o] vs. [ɒ]). I use the sound [ɒ] for most _aw_ and _au_ syllables, e.g. _raw_, _thaw_, _taut_, _taught_, etc.

Another interesting word is _comfortable_, which I pronounce sometimes with four syllables, but much more often with three. What is most curious is that the _or_ is silent and the _a_ comes out as [ɚ], apparently with the _r_ coloring from the deleted vowel.

I hope this helps.


----------



## JulianStuart

JamesM said:


> To me, "chur" has the sound of the first syllable in "churlish".  That sound is not at all like "chuh" to me.



As I said, 


> churlish is a schwa to me, followed by the l, while *a rhotic speaker would include the r*


when we talk about the _separated syllables_ the difference between rhotic and non-rhotic becomes apparent - as you are indicating here.  (With my non-rhotic accent, they do not differ but that's not the point here.  If you _were_ able to remove the r from the first syllable of chur, you would be left with a ch-schwa, would you not, and then we would put that r onto the third syllable to yield rul, also with a schwa.  The two transcriptions of natural  produce the same pronunciation of the word natural, at least as I read them - hence my request for clarification.


----------



## JamesM

> If you _were_ able to remove the r from the first syllable of chur, you would be left with a ch-schwa, would you not, and then we would put that r onto the third syllable to yield rul, also with a schwa.


 
I see that Merriam-Webster shows a schwa for both chug and churlish, for example, but that's not my experience of the sound "chur". "Chur" has the same vowel sound as "blurb" in my accent and that is a different sound from a schwa. I can't explain the reason that they are both notated in the dictionary the same, but "chuh" and "chur" have two different vowel sounds to me. "Chuh" would be like "shut" and "chur" would be like "sure". (I understand that "sure" and "shut" _may_ or may not have the same vowel sound for you, but they are different for me.)

Maybe natkretep can explain it, since he mentioned the "r" coloring the vowel.

In the meantime, you can always try the text to speech demo website: 

http://www.research.att.com/~ttsweb/tts/demo.php

As I said before, if you choose "Mike - US English" and type in "This is sure. This is churlish. This is shut. This is sullen." I think you'll hear the two vowel sounds I'm talking about.


----------



## BlackRaven

Merriam Webster is actually backing YOU up, it just simply uses a different set of pronunciation symbols you're probably not familiar with.


----------



## JulianStuart

James - thanks for the link - good for aural training!
A few notes from my first session :
Sure is more like shoer (as in someone who puts shoes on) in US (Mike, Crystal more so!) but shore (like sea shore) by Charles (UK)  .  
They both make churlish rhyme with girlish.  
Shut and sullen are a long way from schwas.  
And, back to our discussion, they all say natural almost exactly the same way (_I_ have great difficulty hearing any difference) where the middle vowel is almost gone while the last one sounds like a schwa + l sound.  If the second and third vowel sounds are unstressed, I still see them both as schwas, no matter how the syllables get transcribed even if the middle one is almost silent.  I have to say, this is about the deepest I've ever delved into the fine points of vowel shading and transcription


----------



## Sam99

Pedro y La Torre said:


> The first, most definitely. It may differ for other dialects however.



I'd say Na-tral (Natchrul)


----------



## JamesM

JulianStuart said:


> And, back to our discussion, they all say natural almost exactly the same way (_I_ have great difficulty hearing any difference) where the middle vowel is almost gone while the last one sounds like a schwa + l sound. If the second and third vowel sounds are unstressed, I still see them both as schwas, no matter how the syllables get transcribed even if the middle one is almost silent.


 
I think we're agreeing but we may be saying it different ways. Since the first syllable in "churlish" doesn't sound like it has a schwa sound in my accent, it's odd to me to represent "natural" as "na-chur-ul". The middle syllable ends up with a different sound from what I expect (the "shoer" sound you spoke about.) That's why I divide it up as "na-chuh-rul" rather than "na-chur-uhl" -- to avoid that "shoer" vowel sound in the second syllable (in my accent).


----------



## Loob

entangledbank said:


> This seems to miss the point of the rhotic/non-rhotic difference. In a non-rhotic accent you can't have [r] in the _end_ of a syllable. A letter <r> between vowels belongs to the following syllable, regardless of morphology - it's at the beginning of a syllable, so pronounced in all accents:
> 
> murderer = ['mɜ:dǝrǝ]. This is divided into syllables as ['mɜ: . dǝ . rǝ]. The <r> at the end of the element <murder> etymologically belongs with the preceding syllable, but phonetically is the beginning of the next syllable.
> 
> With that, or with a word like 'moderate', you don't have a choice of syllabification. You can't put the <r> with the preceding syllable in some words but the following syllable in other words. One consonant between two vowels belongs with the following vowel. So in both a rhotic and a non-rhotic accent, 'moderate', is [mɒ . dǝ . reɪt] (verb), [mɒ . dǝ . rǝt] (adjective). No difference. (Or in an accent like AE that lacks the [ɒ] sound, the first syllable is [mɑ:].)
> 
> So torturing = ['tɔ:tʃǝrɪŋ]. No choice about which syllable the [r] belongs to. We all syllabify it the same: ['tɔ: (r) . tʃǝ . rɪŋ].


 


entangledbank said:


> Syllable boundaries cross word boundaries. In 'that car is mine' the sounds are /ka:rɪz/. The usual rules of syllabification divide this into /ka: . rɪz/ - the /r/ belongs to the beginning of the syllable, and is therefore pronounced: [ka: . rɪz].


Nicely put, etb.


----------



## JulianStuart

JamesM said:


> I think we're agreeing but we may be saying it different ways. Since the first syllable in "churlish" doesn't sound like it has a schwa sound in my accent, it's odd to me to represent "natural" as "na-chur-ul". The middle syllable ends up with a different sound from what I expect (the "shoer" sound you spoke about.) That's why I divide it up as "na-chuh-rul" rather than "na-chur-uhl" -- to avoid that "shoer" vowel sound in the second syllable (in my accent).



I agree   There are probably a number of cases where I would pronounce a schwa beacuse I don't pronounce the r and therefore lose the "coloration" that distinguishes the same vowel for you.

etb's summary makes it clear that syllabification ( love that word) transcriptions should ideally use IPA to avoid this very issue of "you read it one way and I read it another" depending on our rhotational freedom .


----------



## JamesM

Someday I will learn IPA to the point that I'm comfortable with it. Until then I should probably stay away from pronunciation threads.


----------



## entangledbank

I usually avoid threads when they become long and complex, but I've gone back and noticed that Forero (post #36) knows exactly what they're talking about, and is actually more accurate than my own comments. I was hoping to avoid this complexity.

In most rhotic accents (such as Irish or South-West English) we can treat a word like 'car' as /ka:r/, i.e. a simple vowel followed by a consonant /r/. We then argue whether this consonant /r/ belongs to this or that syllable, treating it as distinct from the vowels.

In (most?) AE accents, however, 'car' phonetically ends in a vowel. Sic. The vowel is like /a:/ in 'father' but is r-coloured throughout: the tongue tip is curled up as if to make consonant /r/, but is actually changing the flow of air all during the vowel. Likewise with all the other sequences that might be superficially described as vowel + /r/ - they're actually r-coloured vowels, with no need to say there's any separate consonant at the end. Obviously this significantly changes argument about what belongs with what syllable. (Caveat: I'm not a native speaker of such accents and might be missing some details that could affect the argument.)


----------



## natkretep

entangledbank said:


> In (most?) AE accents, however, 'car' phonetically ends in a vowel. Sic. The vowel is like /a:/ in 'father' but is r-coloured throughout: the tongue tip is curled up as if to make consonant /r/, but is actually changing the flow of air all during the vowel. Likewise with all the other sequences that might be superficially described as vowel + /r/ - they're actually r-coloured vowels, with no need to say there's any separate consonant at the end. Obviously this significantly changes argument about what belongs with what syllable. (Caveat: I'm not a native speaker of such accents and might be missing some details that could affect the argument.)




Thanks etb. I was waiting for someone to explain the r-colouring and you've done it beautifully. I suspect this is why rhotic speakers might want to attach the /r/ to the preceding syllable. (Same caveat for me: my accent is non-rhotic.)


----------



## Imber Ranae

natkretep said:


> Like, JS, I'm wondering what the issue is because the /r/ shows up whether you think of *na-chur-ul* or *na-chuh-rul*. Unless *ur* is meant to denote what is called an r-coloured vowel where the /r/ sound almost functions like a syllable.



Well, yes, I understood -chur- to represent consonantal ch + vocalic r. I was wondering whether certain Americans who described their pronunciation as na-ch*uh*-*r*al actually pronounced it as a schwa with r being separate (and thus part of the next syllable), or they just thought of it that way.


----------



## Forero

The feature "rhotic" has more than one manifestation. In some rhotic dialects, _r_ is pronounced, rolled, flapped, or retroflex, but the vowels are as in non-rhotic dialects. This is one reason rhotic speakers from Ireland, Scotland, India, and the U.S. may give different answers to the thread question.

In my dialect, _car_ is one syllable but contains a diphthong: [kʰɑə˞]. We may call it an "_r_-colored _a_", but that is because it is  [ɑə˞] rather than the [æ] of _cat_. The [ɑ] is not otherwise different from the one in _body_. In the upper Midwest _car_ will have [a] rather than [ɑ].

I distinguish only two actual _r_-colored simple vowels, the _r_-colored schwa [ə˞] and the _r_-colored _ur_ as in the first syllable of _murder_ [ɜ˞]. The [ə˞] sound attaches to other vowels as an off-glide in the same syllable, but forms a separate syllable after a consonant or other off-glide (for example for _shoer_/_shooer_ [ˈʃʉŭə˞], with two syllables, as opposed to _sure_ [ʃʊə˞], with one syllable).


----------

