British add an "r" sound

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Colophon

Yes, his fact-checking is ravintolassa appalling.

To explain for those not familiar with it: in Mother Tongue, Bill Bryson claims that the only swear word in Finnish is "ravintolassa," meaning "in the restaurant." While it is true that "ravintolassa" means "in the restaurant" in Finnish (he got those parts correct), it only quite literally means "in the restaurant" and is not employed as a swear word. And Finnish has plenty of swear words. Why would one think otherwise? How gullible to you have to be not to follow this up with a little fact checking to make sure someone is not trying to put one over on you?

[Acsenray]

I wonder whether anyone has ever pinned Bryson down on this kind of crap.

[JKellyMap]

Well, see my post from a few minutes ago... Judging from his different style in "A Short History of Everything," which I think is a later book than the language one, it does seem that he might have taken some of these criticisms to heart.

[Acsenray]

Well I was hoping to see a direct confrontation in which an interviewer asks him to his face about falsehoods.

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Well I was hoping to see a direct confrontation in which an interviewer asks him to his face about falsehoods.

That might be entertaining!

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by JohnB_Melb

I understand what the "intrusive R" means, I actually pronounce it myself sometimes.
My point is that it's a result of the tongue re-positioning for the vowel sounds while voicing is maintained, not an explicit, deliberate "R" being inserted.

Novelty Bubble also perceives an "R" sound in the way some speakers (including me) pronounce "pahsta" due to the way Novelty Bubble, and those who have similar accents, pronounce words like "part" , "farm" , versus their pronunciation of pasta.

Going back to this, I think I have a different way to think about it.

For rhotic speakers, the r represents a distinct sound. It serves as a consonant. For non-rhotic speakers, the r functions more as a vowel or vowel modifier. It is just like that silent e I mentioned before. You don't pronounce the r, you modify the vowel you are using. So one could term the two uses as "consonant r" for the rhotic r and "vowel r" for the non-rhotic r. (Hey, if w can sometimes be a vowel, why not r?)

So when Novelty Bubble talks about hearing an r, he is talking about the "vowel r", which really is nothing like the "consonant r". Almost nobody pronounces "pasta" with a consonant r.

Similarly with the intrusive r, whether or not it is intentional or a byproduct of how the speaker makes vowels and not intentional, it nevertheless is a consonant r sound that is being made. Same way the linked example talking about "schtreet" or "chree" or "chrain".

For those examples, the letter combo "tr" seems to be of particular difficulty. Trying to put the tongue in the position for the t and closely follow with the r position smears the sounds into a "chr". Similarly, one of the liked threads mentiones Sri Lanka and how most Americans pronounce it "Shri".

For myself, I listened carefully and find that I am guilty of chree and chrain, but not "schtreet".

[JohnB_Melb]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Going back to this, I think I have a different way to think about it.

For rhotic speakers, the r represents a distinct sound. It serves as a consonant. For non-rhotic speakers, the r functions more as a vowel or vowel modifier. It is just like that silent e I mentioned before. You don't pronounce the r, you modify the vowel you are using. So one could term the two uses as "consonant r" for the rhotic r and "vowel r" for the non-rhotic r. (Hey, if w can sometimes be a vowel, why not r?)

So when Novelty Bubble talks about hearing an r, he is talking about the "vowel r", which really is nothing like the "consonant r". Almost nobody pronounces "pasta" with a consonant r.

Similarly with the intrusive r, whether or not it is intentional or a byproduct of how the speaker makes vowels and not intentional, it nevertheless is a consonant r sound that is being made. Same way the linked example talking about "schtreet" or "chree" or "chrain".

For those examples, the letter combo "tr" seems to be of particular difficulty. Trying to put the tongue in the position for the t and closely follow with the r position smears the sounds into a "chr". Similarly, one of the liked threads mentiones Sri Lanka and how most Americans pronounce it "Shri".

For myself, I listened carefully and find that I am guilty of chree and chrain, but not "schtreet".

Thanks, Irishman. A thoughtful post.
Your description of the "vowel R" is an interesting way of looking at it and the comparison with the "chree" is possibly the most relevant description so far.
The "smearing" of the "tr" sound into "ch" is, I believe, another of those speech "shortcuts" to which I will no longer refer to as being "lazy" :-)

Possibly it takes slightly more control, to do the "TR" properly than the "CH".

"T" is unvoiced like "CH" but requires more tongue precision

While I usually pronounce the "TR" properly in "Tree", I also find it easy to say "Ch" in certain situations.

Maybe, to be fair, this should be referred to as an "intrusive C" !!

As for "Sri Lanka", a former current affairs show host in Australia used to annoyingly pronounce it as "SIRI Lanka" as in the name of Apple's voice assistant. He was saying it this way back in the 1980's, maybe that's where Apple got the name from :-)

Personally, I have no difficulty with the "Sri Lanka" pronunciation, no extra "i", no "Sh".

And I never say "Schtreet"!

Oh, and while searching for something about "T", I came across these crimes perpetrated against the language.

http://www.pronuncian.com/Lessons/De...aspx?Lesson=64

Basically, the letter t can:

Sound like a regular t sound (as in the word time )
Sound like a quick d sound (as in the word little )
Become a glottal stop (as in the word partner )
Be ignored and have no sound at all (as in the word center )

http://www.americanaccent.com/pronunciation.html

2 Middle of the Staircase [T is D]
If the T is in the middle of the word, intonation changes the sound to a soft D.
Letter sounds like [ledder].

Water, daughter, bought a, caught a, lot of, got a, later, meeting, better

Practice these sentences:
What a good idea. [w'd' güdäi deey']
Put it in a bottle. [pü di di n' bäd'l]
Get a better water heater. [gedda bedder wäder heeder]
Put all the data in the computer. [püdall the dayd' in the k'mpyuder]
Patty ought to write a better letter. [pædy äd' ride a bedder ledder]

NO, a "T" is NOT a glottal stop, nor is it a "D", nor is it ignored !

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by JohnB_Melb

NO, a "T" is NOT a glottal stop, nor is it a "D", nor is it ignored !

Of course it is. Consonants in English (and many other languages) change their sound based on where they are in the word. Orthography does not have a one-to-one correspondance with pronunciation. Depending on your dialect and accent, the way the sounds change will vary. What's the big deal?

[pulykamell]

Here's another interesting article I found about the "tr" as "chr" phenomenon. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one pronouncing the "str" cluster as something like "shch":

One of my first revelations studying phonetics as an undergrad was that 'strawberry' can start /shch/. I was adamant it couldn't possibly be true. I was wrong

[JKellyMap]

Irishman, the word you're looking for is "phoneme." You defined the concept very well, I'm pretty sure.

Typically, it's explained thus: the "aspirated p" and "unaspirated p" are not different phonemes in (any) English, and we know this BECAUSE the speech contexts in which one or the other is used is entirely predictable -- it has no semantic value, just a "this is what you say before these sounds and/or after those sounds."

In Hindi, though, these same sounds ARE different phonemes. They can have semantic value. We know this because of "minimal pairs" -- pairs of words which differ in sound ONLY because of these two sounds, and which have different meanings.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

In Hindi, though, these same sounds ARE different phonemes. They can have semantic value. We know this because of "minimal pairs" -- pairs of words which differ in sound ONLY because of these two sounds, and which have different meanings.

And my dad, my brother and I came up with these examples from Bengali (illustrating the phonemic values of aspiration (breathiness) — /k/ /kʰ/ — and gemination (doubled consonants) / t͡ʃʰ/ / t͡ʃʰː/ ) —

/'tʃul ko t͡ʃʰe/ - It's itching

/tʃul 'kaʈ t͡ʃʰe/ - He's cutting hair

/tʃul 'kʰa t͡ʃʰːe/ - He's eating hair

(In these examples, the subjects of the sentences are implied, which is common in colloquial Bengali speech.)

[JKellyMap]

Cool! Are any of you fluent (perhaps native) speakers? Does the "ray" in your username have anything to do with the great Bengali filmmaker?

Sorry for yet more hijacks. Last ones in this thread, we promise.

(P.S. Forgive me, your three sentences sound like the three successive scenes of a porno flick )

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

Cool! Are any of you fluent (perhaps native) speakers?

My dad is.

Does the "ray" in your username have anything to do with the great Bengali filmmaker?

No.

[JKellyMap]

Okay, neat. Thanks.

[JohnB_Melb]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

Of course it is. Consonants in English (and many other languages) change their sound based on where they are in the word. Orthography does not have a one-to-one correspondance with pronunciation. Depending on your dialect and accent, the way the sounds change will vary. What's the big deal?

I agree that letters can change their pronunciation depending on position, but these examples appeared prescriptive, suggesting that "intrusive Ds" should be inserted in place of "T" in various words.

I have heard Americans say "little" not "liddle", and "partner" not "par.ner" and "centre" rather than "cenner".

I have also heard non-Americans say "liddle, par-ner, cenner" too, but I don't believe that website was proper in suggesting that to sound "American" one should not pronounce the "T" properly in those words when many Americans do pronounce it.
In any case, those suggested pronunciations are not solely an issue for the American version of English.

When I was at school, pronouncing "liddle" or "cenner" would be corrected by a teacher, and rightfully so, in my opinion!!

[JKellyMap]

I think this deserves another thread, so I won't get into things too deeply here, but I will point out that, in any region, there is a difference between "careful, slow, self-conscious speech" and "everyday, rapid, normal speech". Linguists work hard to get recordings of the latter (LA-dr). Pronouncing "t" as "d" or even just as a flap in the context you mention is very common in normal American speech, so that makes it "correct", whatever your teacher might have said. It is less common (or at least the distinction is less pronounced) in most forms of British speech. This is one reason Americans tend to associate much British speech with "formal, highly educated" conversation -- because Americans usually only pronounce these sounds as "t's" in formal, careful, self-conscious situations, like public speeches or when trying to teach a word to an infant. Basically, situations where the mere ORTHOGRAPHY (which means next to nothing for most of the themes discussed in this thread) is present in the speaker's mind.

[JohnB_Melb]

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

I think this deserves another thread, so I won't get into things too deeply here, but I will point out that, in any region, there is a difference between "careful, slow, self-conscious speech" and "everyday, rapid, normal speech". Linguists work hard to get recordings of the latter (LA-dr). Pronouncing "t" as "d" or even just as a flap in the context you mention is very common in normal American speech, so that makes it "correct", whatever your teacher might have said. It is less common (or at least the distinction is less pronounced) in most forms of British speech. This is one reason Americans tend to associate much British speech with "formal, highly educated" conversation -- because Americans usually only pronounce these sounds as "t's" in formal, careful, self-conscious situations, like public speeches or when trying to teach a word to an infant. Basically, situations where the mere ORTHOGRAPHY (which means next to nothing for most of the themes discussed in this thread) is present in the speaker's mind.

I agree there. As I said the "D" substitution, ( or should I refer to it as an "intrusive D" ) happens here in Australia, although it was discouraged when I was younger. While it may well be accepted as correct due to widespread usage in the USA, that was not the case here in Australia.

What surprised me was that the website mentioned appeared to be actually encouraging that pronunciation, even though, as you say, "careful, slow, self conscious speech" might differ.

Anyway, it's an interesting difference in perspective.

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by JohnB_Melb

I agree there. As I said the "D" substitution, ( or should I refer to it as an "intrusive D" ) happens here in Australia, although it was discouraged when I was younger. While it may well be accepted as correct due to widespread usage in the USA, that was not the case here in Australia.

What surprised me was that the website mentioned appeared to be actually encouraging that pronunciation, even though, as you say, "careful, slow, self conscious speech" might differ.

Anyway, it's an interesting difference in perspective.

Agreed. My wife teaches English as a foreign language, and she faces this dilemma all the time: teach them what real people say, or what the book says?

[JohnB_Melb]

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

Agreed. My wife teaches English as a foreign language, and she faces this dilemma all the time: teach them what real people say, or what the book says?

I'd go with "what the book says", they'll still be subject to all the local influences of speech anyway, so they'll adapt to that.

Plus, if you teach "what the book says", then they should be more adaptable to other versions and accents.

I think that's similar to teaching French in Quebec. I was told that they learn "official" French at school as well as the local variations.
But one business associate from Quebec, some years back, told me that on his first trip to Paris, he asked a question in (Canadian) French and was answered .... in ENGLISH !!

That must have hurt !

[JKellyMap]

Ouch. Yeah, similarly, US high school French teachers teach "nous" as the best translation of "we", when in fact most French speakers use "on" about 90 percent if the time.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by JohnB_Melb

I have heard Americans say "little" not "liddle"

It's not really a standard "d" there, but something called an alveolar flap. The phenomenon of turning Ts and Ds between a vowel into the same sound (for example, "metal" and "medal" are identical in my accent, unless I choose to stress the difference) is called intervocalic alveolar flapping. In my experience, it seems to be present in a majority of American accents. The reason I say this is because when somebody pronounces "little" with a clear "t" rather than an alveolar flap, it sticks out to me. This linguistics paper (PDF), says the phenomenon is a "characteristic of most varieties of North American English." I would agree with that assessment.

"partner" not "par.ner" and "centre" rather than "cenner".

This I don't know for sure. My speech doesn't exhibit any "t-glottilization" in the word "partner," (although it will in words like "not" and "can't") but my "center" does come out as "cenner" in spontaneous speech, just like "twenty" becomes "twenny," and I think that's pretty common in American accents. I'm not sure if it's present in most American accents, but at least very common.

When I was at school, pronouncing "liddle" or "cenner" would be corrected by a teacher, and rightfully so, in my opinion!!

Because in your dialect, those are not considered "correct" pronunciations. In North American English, those are not considered incorrect. Hell, most speakers probably can't even tell or know that they're using alveolar flaps, glottal stops, or eliding "nt" into "n," just like many speakers here swear up and down that they don't insert a consonant rhotic between vowels in words, when they clearly do.

[SCAdian]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

It's not really a standard "d" there, but something called an alveolar flap. The phenomenon of turning Ts and Ds between a vowel into the same sound (for example, "metal" and "medal" are identical in my accent, unless I choose to stress the difference) is called intervocalic alveolar flapping. In my experience, it seems to be present in a majority of American accents. The reason I say this is because when somebody pronounces "little" with a clear "t" rather than an alveolar flap, it sticks out to me. This linguistics paper (PDF), says the phenomenon is a "characteristic of most varieties of North American English." I would agree with that assessment.

Got a DVD a while back of the Beatles' appearances on the Ed Sullivan show, and one of the things that really stood out to me was the way Sullivan emphasized the first syllable of "Beatles," clearly pronouncing the 'T' and inserting a glottal stop between it and the 'L.' I've always pronounced both the singers and the insects "beadles"....

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by pulykamell

Hell, most speakers probably can't even tell or know that they're using alveolar flaps, glottal stops, or eliding "nt" into "n," just like many speakers here swear up and down that they don't insert a consonant rhotic between vowels in words, when they clearly do.

This. I think one of the biggest lessons I take from this thread is just how "sloppy" we all can be in our pronunciation and not realize we are doing it. Because I would swear I'm pronouncing a "t" in all of those situations, but actually listening to myself and trying to relax and be natural, I hear some of those features - "I'm not making a glottal stop, I'm saying a t" and then it comes out like a glottal stop.

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

Irishman, the word you're looking for is "phoneme."

But I keep reading that word as phenome and not knowing what that is.

You defined the concept very well, I'm pretty sure.

But I don't know what that means. And I try to avoid using words I don't know.

Typically, it's explained thus: the "aspirated p" and "unaspirated p" are not different phonemes in (any) English, and we know this BECAUSE the speech contexts in which one or the other is used is entirely predictable -- it has no semantic value, just a "this is what you say before these sounds and/or after those sounds."

In Hindi, though, these same sounds ARE different phonemes. They can have semantic value. We know this because of "minimal pairs" -- pairs of words which differ in sound ONLY because of these two sounds, and which have different meanings.

Did you mean that in the first case, it is unpredictable? If so, then I think I see what you are saying. A "phoneme" is different when it relays different semantic context, but when it is just a variant sound for the same semantic context it is the same phomene. Correct?

[For You]

Watch some of the later episodes of the 80's Bill Cosby Show: I noticed the kids especially converting the trailing "d" in words into a hard glottal (throat) stop. "Dad" became "Da'". I have not really heard that very much lately.

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Did you mean that in the first case, it is unpredictable? If so, then I think I see what you are saying. A "phoneme" is different when it relays different semantic context, but when it is just a variant sound for the same semantic context it is the same phomene. Correct?

Your latter statement is perfectly correct. But if you think about it (it took me a while to get this, too!), this means that when you have two different sounds that do NOT have semantic value -- that is, they represent the same phoneme -- like, the "aspirated p" and "unaspirated p" in English -- then you will come to understand that what I said is true:

It is perfectly PREDICTIBLE which sound English speakers will use, based on the SOUND CONTEXT. After or before certain sounds, we always use one of the sounds. After or before certain others, we always use the other sound. No semantic information is conveyed!

You can think of this in terms of basic information theory. If some variable always correlates with some other variable in the same exact way, then you don't need both variables -- you just need one of them to convey information. It's when you introduce UNpredictibility that you start adding new information (or at least the possibility of it), as long as that unpredicibility isn't random -- and, these semantic-conveying phonemes are not random. We use one when we want to convey some meaning, and use the other when we want to convey some other meaning.

Perhaps a different example will help. For English speakers, an example of the reverse of the "aspirated/unaspirated p" thing is the "r - l thing". The "R" and "L" sounds ARE different and distinct phonemes in English (never mind that the "r", especially, can be pronounced different ways -- the original point of this thread). But in Mandarin Chinese, they are different ways to pronounce the SAME phoneme (just like "aspirated p" and "unaspirated p" in English). Thus, native Chinese speakers have trouble remembering which of the two sounds to use in which situations when they are learning English. I've never seen a study on this, but I'll bet they tend to use "r" in certain SOUND contexts, and "l" in certain other ones, forgetting that the two sounds DO convey semantic information in English.

[JKellyMap]

P.S. The word for variant sounds of the same phoneme is allophones.

[Acsenray]

I don't think all allophones are necessarily alternating.

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I don't think all allophones are necessarily alternating.

True. I have never taken a class in linguistics, so correct me if I'm wrong, but sometimes allophones can vary "freely" -- that is, more or less unpredictably (based on sound context) -- while still failing to convey semantic information, because they are processed as essentially the same "sound" by the speaker and the listener.

I guess this would include things like the "t/d/alveolar flap/glottal stop" series we just discussed in words like "latter", where the variation among allophones is less due to sound context, and more due to the REGISTER of speech (at least in some regional varieties of English): formal and/or slow vs. informal and/or fast.

[JKellyMap]

I should amend what I said just a bit: if an individual uses one allophone when speaking in one register (e.g., formal), and another when speaking in a different register (e.g., informal), this change can convey something "semantic" in the broader sense -- that is, something CONNOTATIONAL, rather than DENOTATIONAL. A famous example is that of President Obama (and Bush before him) "dropping -g's" in words ending in "-ing", when trying to convey "hey-I'm-just one-of-the-guys" when speaking for a particular audience.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by JKellyMap

It is perfectly PREDICTIBLE which sound English speakers will use, based on the SOUND CONTEXT. After or before certain sounds, we always use one of the sounds. After or before certain others, we always use the other sound. No semantic information is conveyed!

Then predictable isn't really a matter of relevance, as it is predictable in either case. In one case, it is predicatable by semantic intent, the other by sound context. I guess I was looking at it more from predictable = semantic content. You can pick which it needs to be by the meaning intended, then that is predictable use, whereas it varies depending on the letters around it isn't predictable in that same context.

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Then predictable isn't really a matter of relevance, as it is predictable in either case. In one case, it is predicatable by semantic intent, the other by sound context. I guess I was looking at it more from predictable = semantic content. You can pick which it needs to be by the meaning intended, then that is predictable use, whereas it varies depending on the letters around it isn't predictable in that same context.

True. I think that linguists tend to use the word "predictible" to refer to the sound context, though, because it's hard to enter the mind of any speaker, so the semantic information that is trying to be conveyed is in some sense less "known" than things like the sound context. It's something you can guess at pretty well most of the time, but sometimes can only know for sure by asking the speaker, "what did you mean by that?".

[Irishman]

But based on sound context, one would think I should say "shtchreet", because I say "tchree". But I don't. When I pair the "tr" with the leading "s", the "ch" goes away.

Thinking about it, it seems when I say "str" I am pairing the "t" with the "s", then flowing to the "r", so the "t" is cleaner. But if I just say the "tr", the "t" forms closer to the "ch" shape.

I note that "t" is formed with the tip of the tongue near the roof of the mouth, while "ch" is formed with the mid part of the tongue at the roof of the mouth. "R" is formed with the back edges of the tongue high and the tip low. So rolling "t" to "r" seems to form with the middle of the tongue rather than the tip high as it blends to the "r".

[Acsenray]

I think this "chrain" phenonmenon is palatalization, and isn't that a prominent feature of Irish language phonology?

[CurtC]

I've also always said "chrain" and I'm certainly not Irish.

[Acsenray]

I didn't imply that it was exclusively Irish. But Irishman is Irish so I thought that might be an interesting observation.

Such palatalization in TR is fairly common in American accents. Now, I wonder if this might have been picked up originally from Irish immigrants.

[Irishman]

Don't let my username fool you. I'm American, born and raised, from American parents. I have a couple of Irish immigrant great grandparents, and that's the closest link I know. I don't speak Irish Gaelic.

I grew up in Arkansas, and have lived in Oklahoma and southeast Texas.

[Acsenray]

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by Irishman

Don't let my username fool you. I'm American, born and raised, from American parents.

Likewise.

[Johanna]

Originally Posted by Irishman

I note that "t" is formed with the tip of the tongue near the roof of the mouth, while "ch" is formed with the mid part of the tongue at the roof of the mouth. "R" is formed with the back edges of the tongue high and the tip low. So rolling "t" to "r" seems to form with the middle of the tongue rather than the tip high as it blends to the "r".

Now you're doing phonetics. Good man.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

I think this "chrain" phenonmenon is palatalization, and isn't that a prominent feature of Irish language phonology?

Indeed it is both of those.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Originally Posted by juliawenzel1

Why do Brits often add an "r" sound at the end of words ending in an "a"? For instance my English friend calls me Juliar and her daughter Samanthar. BBC reporters refer to "Chinar" and "Indiar".

It's not an 'r' - it's an 'ah'

I suggest you look to phonetics.

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by Full Tilt Boogie

It's not an 'r' - it's an 'ah'

I suggest you look to phonetics.

Unless you use phonetic notation, I really can't tell what you're trying to say.

[JKellyMap]

Acsenray, my humble suggestion is that we let this one rest. This thread is starting to feel like "Groundhog Day.".

YMMV.

[Acsenray]

Yes, MMDV, at least for now.