2 ms·
I 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 diff
by mkl 7y ago
I 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.