Talk:Rhoticity in English/Archive 3

message: Someone purposely constructed the first paragraph to contain the phrase, "like butta." I appreciate the creativity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.87.114 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Like butta

message: There is a technical tag at the top of this article.  I think that there should be an introduction where it is clarified what  is.  Most non-specialists are not aware of this.  For example, most English people consider the  vowel in (Queen's English) bird, girl, kerb to be an .  Some would suppose the  vowel in air, chair to be an , or the long  in father, tomato.  For this article to be less technical, it should be defined what we mean by .  Epa101 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree here. Perhaps the insertion of a sidebar which 'translates' these phonemic terms (the IPA /r/ for sure, but I believe there are several others used frequently in the article as well that could be translated), with actual examples, would be incredibly helpful. I'm more educated in this area than many (Masters degree and teacher of English, plus graduate level coursework in linguistics), and even I found this entire article very difficult to comprehend. I read it several times and also read a good portion of the relative linked pages, and still remain unclear and frustrated with my level of comprehension on the topic. If I feel this way, then the average reader would likely just give up. A reader should not have to constantly jump between articles to gain the background knowledge needed for understanding and comprehension. Rathyrye 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of IPA /r/ to make it less technical

message: This seems like quite an involved and unlikely etymology, given the common (by the end of the 1960s) Americanism, narc, short for "narcotics agent," which became a verb almost immediately (e.g., "to narc on [someone]"). Might the British non-rhotic /r/ and the coincidental phonic association with the Russian word for informer, stukach (derived from the Russian for "knock"), be the source of an involved folk etymology here? Doprendek (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "nark" meaning "police informer" is much older than "narc" meaning "narcotics agent". I'm pretty sure I've seen "nark" in British detective novels of the 1920s and '30s. I think that term really is from Romany, and was probably never used in the U.S. "Narc", a clipped form of "narcotics agent" is probably much later, from the 1960s as you say. I think it's a linguistic case of convergent evolution. —Angr 06:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Narc' - from Romany ???? 

message: I have a hard time following the examples and figuring out what is rhotic vs. non-rhotic. Please add audio. The IPA stuff also confuses me, but that's another story.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slides2008 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. As stated in my note above, I have a Masters in English which included coursework specific to linguistics, and even I became frustrated trying to decipher all this. Rathyrye 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This article  needs audio samples

message: I am sure the map is based on SED (Survey of English Dialects) and I am also sure I have seen it before (though less colourful). But still, it is unsourced, so if a source is not provided, we should consider deleting it.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked the creator here to say where the map's info comes from, but he hasn't answered yet. —Angr 10:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally found the source, but still, I think three maps on rhoticity in England alone is way too much.Unoffensive text or character (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Farmer'' map 

message: I think that, for readability, the Chinese characters (here and elsewhere) should be accompanied by a romanized transliteration (pinyin or IPA).Zwart (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "But in characters pronounced [ɑ̂ɻ], for instance 二 "two", the [ɻ] is an inherent part of the word and is always pronounced, even in areas where that [ɻ] coda would not be pronounced."  This is incorrect information.  I'll rewrite or delete it.  White Whirlwind  咨  04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  chinese characters 

message: This article makes no attempt at explaining why at present most British English speech varieties are non-rhotic while American varieties by and large are. The maps comparing rhotic speech in England in the 1950s and the end of the 20th century demonstrate that rhotic speech is on the decline in England. From this I infer that rhoticism was much more prevalent (perhaps nearly universal) in the UK  several hundred years ago at the time of the original British colonization of North America, and the earliest immigrants from the British Isles would have brought their mostly rhotic speech with them to the New World. This would explain the modern-day differences between standard British and American "accents." However, this is never explicitly stated in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.211.231 (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is broadly correct.  R-dropping is described by Wells as a "British prestige innovation", subsequently copied in parts of the world that held that speech in high esteem.  Grover cleveland (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are indications that R-dropping used to be more widespread in the American colonies, though, even in informal and uneducated speech, and was later pushed back again (presumably to emphasise the distinction from the British, and perhaps supported by the influence of dialectal speech and non-English languages common among – especially later – immigrants: R-dropping would conceivably have been naturally absent in the accents of many immigrants not originating from eastern England). See this discussion in Wiktionary. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. More background info re: the evolution, or rather the 'why' or 'how did this phenomenon occur over time and region' would add both depth and interest to the article. Rathyrye 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be noted, however, that all mentioned instances share a striking feature: the disappeared r occurs immediately before s. Hence, I suspect what we really observe here is a cluster simplification rs > ss (or phonologically /rs/ > /s/) which is unconnected with rhoticity, and therefore, chance is that non-rhoticity was never widespread in American English (at least there remains no evidence for it apart from the examples in question, apparently), but is instead a recent (ca. 18th-century) development originally limited to Britain, from which it later spread to certain regions in North America that were under the influence of British English, as in New England especially, or possibly AAVE, as in the south. David Crystal's reconstruction of Shakespeare's original pronunciation is solidly rhotic, with rhotic vowels, just like Standard American English, so it seems most of American English simply retained this feature fundamentally unchanged. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical reasons for US rhoticity 

message: Hi all. This article, though excellent, contains a diagram that is difficult for colour blind people to follow, namely the rhotacity in England one. I'm somewhat colour blind myself and found it impossible to use without outside help. I'll add this page to the relevant category, and people can work out if they agree with me or not. NearlyDrNash (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhotacity in England diagram 

message: So would I be right to conclude from this article that "morn" doesn't rhyme with "dawn" in standard American English? Thanks. Scil100 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   Hail, thou ever blessed morn, Hail redemption's happy dawn 

message: Is  identically equal to  ?--F. F. Fjodor (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  It might be identical, or it might be specifically claiming that the R-color comes from an alveolar rather than a retroflex tongue position. Grover cleveland (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second map 

message: There seems to be no mention of semi-rhoticity or whatever it's called. I've observed several US speakers using the R in stressed vowels such as "bird", but omitting it in unstressed syllables, such as "letter". Is that called semi-rhoticity or something? The article seems to indicate two absolutes - rhotic and non-rhotic, but what about these people who only pronounce the R in the stressed "er" sound? 90.214.108.162 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also potentially part of this might be the (almost?) universal pronunciation of the word "drawer" with the "Intrusive R" in both rhotic and non-rhotic dialects. I could be wrong about the universality of this phenomenon, but here in Canada, we speak a rhotic dialect, and yet pronounce this word very much like the non-rhotic speakers would pronounce "draw(r)ing". --24.222.13.228 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

text: To 90.214.108.162: This is absolutely a real phenomenon; I'm unsure if experts call it "semi-rhoticity," though I've seen it called that on discussion forums (specifically, Jamaican English was referred to as semi-rhotic). I know that the exact phenomenon you describe also occurs in Boston English. Wonder what the research has to say... Wolfdog (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-rhoticity? 

message: As Hong Kong had been a British colony for many years before 1997, most of the older generations of Hongkongers tended to learn Received Pronunciation. But in recent years, perhaps under the effect of emigration trend to the North America in the early 90s and re-imigration of those emigrants back to Hong Kong,as well as the effect of  American cultures such as American TV programmes, American songs and whatnot, more and more Hong Kong youngsters tended to learn mixed accent between American accent and British accent. A significant evidence of the mixed accent is the rhotic accent of quite a number of students with good academic results in English while many of them do not have a cot-caught merger or Northern Cities Vowel Shift(NCVS).
Besides, most non-native English speakers in Hong Kong speak the so-called Chinglish, which is usually considered as a non-standard or even wrong accent. The so-called Chinglish is, in general, the mix of Cantanese(Chinese) and English. As there is no voiced consonant in Cantanese, an obvious feature of Chinglish is to mistake voiced English consonants, such as "d", "z", "v" and "g" , as unvoiced consonants. For example, many Hongkongers wrongly end the word "is" with an unvoiced /s/ instead of a voiced /z/. An other feature of Chinglish is to mistake the dark L sound ,as in "goal" and "bowl", as a clear L sound as in "low" and "let". Moreover, many Hongkongers mistake /æ/ as /e/. For example, many Hongkongers make no difference between the pronunciation of "pet" and "pat".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkp112358 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong English accent 

message: I believe the part that says that Asian nations speak English with rhotic accents predominantly because of Americanization, but I'm skeptical as to how prevalent this is in India. I'm quite sure India was colonized by the British at a time where everyone was speaking in the upper-classy non-rhotic accents, and, as a result, there is a large Anglo-Indian population that is completely non-rhotic. Even outside the Anglo-Indian community, it is considered a standard formality for many English speaking Indians to use the non-rhotic accent. I know I haven't written any books like Mr. Wells, but this is just what I have observed from living in rhotic speaking North America in a community with many non-rhotic speaking Indians.
Fhqwgads (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution in India 

message: In the sections about the different phonemic mergers, it seems like there is no rhyme or reason as to why some words in the tables of homophonous pairs have links to other articles, but some words do not.  I'm not a Wiki-superstar, so I don't know if there is a policy on "should you link to an article" in this case.  However, it's confusing for me as a reader, as it seems some words have been deemed "important" enough to be linked to "their" articles, but other words have not.
Also, it isn't clear where the lists of words come from.  Looking at a Google Books preview of Wells's 1982 book, the pages referenced in each specific "merger" section do not include a list of words.  If I'm reading the references wrong, it would be great if someone could correct me on this.  Otherwise, I am inclined to mark all the lists of words as unreferenced.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowmanjj (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think deleting these "homophonous pairs" would considerably improve the article. Unoffensive text or character (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word lists of "homophonous pairs" - links and inclusion 

message: From the article:"Non-rhotic speakers pronounce an /r/ in red, and most pronounce it in torrid and watery, where R is followed by a vowel, but not in hard, nor in car or water when those words are said in isolation. However, in most non-rhotic accents, if a word ending in written "r" is followed closely by a word beginning with a vowel, the /r/ is pronounced—as in water ice."
The above is a wrong analysis of 'linking r'. Non-rhotic speakers do not pronounce the 'r' in 'car', 'hard', 'water' etc when they are followed closely by a word beginning with a vowel. Instead the /r/ sound is added to the beginning of the following syllable, regardless of any written letter 'r' in the first word. 
For example take the words 'saw' and 'soar', and 'sawing' and 'soaring'. Many non-rhotic speakers pronounce the 2 pairs exactly the same.
The article takes the position that non-rhotic speakers 'drop' Rs or that they do not pronounce written Rs, when in fact it's simply that for non-rhotic speakers /r/ can only occur at the beginning of a syllable, and the letter R indicates a "lengthening" of a preceeding vowel, eg 'had' and 'hard'. 92.21.104.84 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If I understand your position correctly, you're saying that you object to the notion that the /r/ is "in" the words "car", "water", etc. for non-rhotic speakers.  I guess this is a defensible position, but I fail to see how it is "rhotic POV".  The claims made in the article about when an [r] is pronounced by non-rhotic speakers are all correct. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article written from rhotic POV and linking 'r' 

message: I thought that they did not pronounce rhotic vowels?  And before a vowel, they just add a rhotic consonant rather than the vowel, so hurry is pronounced [hə ri] and not [hɝ ri] like an American. Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhotic consonants? 

message: This entire section/list makes very little sense to me. Even with my background in English and linguistics, along with all the link-jumping I did to help my comprehension, I still remain largely unclear about what this list means, or what knowledge or clarity on the topic I'm supposed to gain from it. I'm left with too many questions that I don't have time to list out here right now, but the main ones are regarding the lack of relationship between the so-called 'lexical sets' and the examples given of the 'phonemic mergers' used to illustrate the point of each sub-section of the list. Perhaps the main problem is the lack of any clear explanation or definition as to what those 2 terms even mean to begin with. Shouldn't there be at least a brief clarification at the beginning of the section explaining what exactly 'lexical sets' and 'phonemic mergers' are anyway? How can the average reader understand anything in the list that follows without an understanding of these crucial terms? Especially without this knowledge, figuring out a relationship between the sets and the example mergers was nearly impossible in most cases. Rathyrye 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mergers characteristic of non-rhotic accents

message: I think there should be a map for Rhotic and non-rhotic accents Scottish English. Komitsuki (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge non-rhoticity in Scotland is restricted to the urban areas of the Central belt. 195.162.87.201 (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rhoticity in Scottish English 

message: The article is called "Rhoticity in English", not "Rhoticity in England".  Why then do the maps only show England (and the Isle of Mann in the last image)? Iapetus (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the rest of the UK? 

message: In my opinion, it makes sense to list all the synonyms in bold in the lead: rhotic, r-pronouncing, r-full and non-rhotic, r-dropping, r-vocalized, r-less etc. These are all common names, any one of which a reader might recognize to confirm he/she is at the right page. User:White whirlwind, on the other hand, suggests the synonyms should be embedded elsewhere in the body of the page. Other users' thoughts? Wolfdog (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as they really are reasonably common, then they ought to be in the lead. Possibly collected together in a final paragraph of the lead, to avoid cluttering the earlier text. W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

text: They should be mentioned somewhere. It would have been more constructive to move the terms to an appropriate place rather than simply deleting them. — Eru·tuon 20:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My primary concern for the lead is to keep its text uncluttered and its prose natural and encyclopedic.  Regarding the additions of the other terms to the lead, I would just want to have it demonstrated that these other terms truly are commonly used in the literature and that users really are searching for these terms before we add in all this new bolded text.  Thanks for everyone's input.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm OK with the final paragraph of the lead. Whirlwind, I think it is demonstrated in the major linguistic texts: Labov's writings, Wells' writings, etc. which I cited. Wolfdog (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of title synonyms - reverted