3 ms·
For "rural", I'd expect there to be significant differences between rhoticizing and other dialects.
by rebuilder 7y ago
For "rural", I'd expect there to be significant differences between rhoticizing and other dialects.
- mkl 7y agoI don't think so, as both "r"s are sounded (like at the start of a word in a non-rhotic accent). It's when the "r" is at the end of a sound that there's a difference: "are", "our", "letter", "arctic", "architecture", etc. (none of those "r"s are sounded in my non-rhotic New Zealand accent, edit: unless followed by a vowel sound, like "letter and").
- noxToken 7y agoUS dialects have a big impact on the second "r". I'm not a linguist, and I'm terrible with the terminology. The proper pronunciation is to sound both /r/ in the same manner. Southern dialects probably won't, but it would be to different degree. Some Southerners would "slur" the second /r/ for something akin to /roo'-rəl/: two syllables, schwa in 2nd syllable, but the second /r/ is barely there. I don't know if there's a way to specify that in a pronunciation key. This is how I'd say it in casual conversation. I imagine that native speakers of languages without /r/ would probably miss the 2nd /r/ with this pronunciation. Other Southerners with thicker accents would run it together like /roo'-əl/: two syllaables, schwa in the 2nd, no perceivable 2nd /r/. There may even be a 3rd way: /rulr/ rhymes with earl.
- mkl 7y agoI see. In all the British-derived non-rhotic accents I'm familiar with, the second "r" sounds basically the same as the first.
- noxToken 7y agoIn terms of "correctness", the 2nd /r/ should always be there. There are so many flavors of English in the US with minor differences. Much like England, you can head 30 miles in a different direction, and you might find a group of people who speak markedly different than you.