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?
I wonder whether anyone has ever pinned Bryson down on this kind of crap.
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.
Well I was hoping to see a direct confrontation in which an interviewer asks him to his face about falsehoods.
That might be entertaining!
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.
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?
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”:
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.
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.)
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 
)
My dad is.
No.
Okay, neat. Thanks.
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!!
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.
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 !
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.