4 ms·
100% wrong, again.
by ncmncm 4y ago
100% wrong, again.
- thaumasiotes 4y agoYou like saying that, but so far you've shown no evidence that you have any idea what you're talking about. Compare the article on intrusive R I linked before: > This is now common enough in parts of England that, by 1997, the linguist John C. Wells considered it objectively part of Received Pronunciation, though he noted that it was still stigmatized as an incorrect pronunciation, as it is or was in some other standardized non-rhotic accents. Wells writes that at least in RP, "linking /r/ and intrusive /r/ are distinct only historically and orthographically".[17] Where footnote 17 cites a paper from 1982.
- ncmncm 4y agoYou even cite proof that you are wrong.
- thaumasiotes 4y agoWhat exactly do you think you're saying?
- ncmncm 4y agoJohn C. Wells has patiently explained to you that intrusive-R pronunciation, while not expected of anyone, is (mostly) not considered to require correction, or to reliably unmask a bounder.
- thaumasiotes 4y agoAnd what does that have to do with my comments?
- ncmncm 4y agoIt means not only are you 100% wrong, you also resist education.