I don’t know what point you intend to make here, because this statement seems to imply that the intrusive R is a physical necessity of some kind. But, if nothing else, the fact that there are accents that don’t have the intrusive R shows that it is not a physical necessity.
It’s merely a phenomenon that people speaking in a particular accent have gotten accustomed to doing, just like Pulykamell is accustomed to pronouncing “street” as /ʃtʃɹit/ (I’m guessing on the two ʃs there, Puly. Amiright?) and it “feels wrong” for him to say it as /stɹit/
I’m not sure, but I seem to be getting the impression that this thread’s description of the phenomenon of the intrusive R is somehow accusatory and you feel the need to defend it. But, really, you don’t.
The dialogue you see here is merely the same kind of dialogue that happens whenever a person with Accent A is surprised by a phenomenon in Accent B. People with less insight start at as confused and people with more experience describe the phenomenon.
It took me a second to catch on to the second /ʃ/, but, yes, that seems to be right. Phoenetically, “shchtreet” would be the approximate spelling of my pronunciation. Actually, that brings up a good point. I say my “tr” clusters as “chr,” so “train” becomes “chrain” (or something very closely approaching that.) I could say it with a clean “tr,” but it feels weird and sounds off to me.
That’s the impression I get, too, but I don’t understand it. Nobody is making any sort of value judgment based on the pronunciation.
Indeed. There are some fascinating connections there.
A documentary I saw, had a bloke on the dutch coast counting to twenty in his regional dialect. The pronunciation was quite different but the rhythm of the numbers was almost identical. It was very interesting stuff.
The origin of the words is also interesting, in English we say “Window” which is of a germanic root (from old norse "Vind Auge or “wind eye”) yet the Germans and Romance languages use the Fenster, Fenettre, Finestre, Ventana variants from Latin.
This is your error. I’m not talking about my perceptions. I’m talking about an objective, scientific observation and description of phenomena. That’s the difference between what I’m saying and what you’re saying.
The mistake you’re making is thinking that all descriptions of pronunciation are necessarily subjective. That’s not true. When you are at the point that you are transcribing pronunciation using a system like IPA, it is no longer a matter of subjective perception.
And this is where it comes from: If, when you transcribe pronunciation, and there is no occurrence of a rhotic consonant in your transcription, then there is no R, regardless of your perception.
I don’t know who you think your audience is for what is basically accepted as tautology around here.
I’ll bet that coastal Dutchman was speaking Frisian, which indeed is the language closest to English – that is, the language which, even more than Dutch or the various Germans, resembles what English probably would sound like today (more or less), were the Norman French invasion of England in 1066 never have taken place.
It sounds like you would enjoy one of my favorite books – The Power of Babel, by John McWhorter. It touches on a lot of language topics (including some comparative etymology and the like), with interesting examples.
You might be right on the Frisian, although I can’t be sure.
I am not sure where the counting to twenty took place, whether it was “Story of English” (written by Robert MacNeil, Robert McCrum, and William Cran) or some other programme.
Bill Bryson, an American author, long time a UK resident and noted more for his travel books, did write “Mother Tongue” which I found very interesting. It was also made into a TV series.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I will check that out.
“The Story of English” was definitely more academic, while Bryson’s effort was more about his own thoughts and experiences. Nevertheless I did enjoy it, as well as Bryson’s travel writings.
Bill Bryson is indeed a fun read. I’ve read almost all his books. Just warning any posters who haven’t read his non-travel writing work to be wary of what is presented as fact in them.
I’ll put this in stronger terms. You might enjoy reading Bryson, but when it comes to language, don’t believe a word he says. He happily transcribes urban myths and folk etymologies that had been debunked decades (or maybe even centuries) before he wrote them down. He puts zero effort into making his writing on language credible in any way. Whatever he gets right, he gets right by chance. Indeed, I’d recommend avoiding reading Bryson to avoid the risk of having your head filled with falsehoods that are later difficult to dislodge.
As a geographer, I can attest that the 30 percent of his other bookA Short History of Nearly Everything that I happen to know something about is much more accurate than his language stuff. Indeed, he seems to have taken a cue from the great John McPhee: instead of writing “x y z is a fact”, in …Everything he more often writes things like “in 1985, scientist x stated that y was true based on evidence z.”
