<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Intrusive r</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r</link>
	<description>Language in a word</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:06:06 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Stefan Olafs</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-41670</link>
		<dc:creator>Stefan Olafs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 23:18:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-41670</guid>
		<description>This is what I gather from my English phonetics professor:

In non-rhotic accents of English, r only occurs prevocalically - it only occurs when a vowel follows it.

With regard to intrusive-r:

R is inserted (intrudes) when it occurs between ə, ɜ:, ɑ:, ɔ: and another vowel.

More on this site:
http://notendur.hi.is/peturk/KENNSLA/02/TOP/rlinking.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is what I gather from my English phonetics professor:</p>
<p>In non-rhotic accents of English, r only occurs prevocalically &#8211; it only occurs when a vowel follows it.</p>
<p>With regard to intrusive-r:</p>
<p>R is inserted (intrudes) when it occurs between ə, ɜ:, ɑ:, ɔ: and another vowel.</p>
<p>More on this site:<br />
<a href="http://notendur.hi.is/peturk/KENNSLA/02/TOP/rlinking.html" rel="nofollow">http://notendur.hi.is/peturk/KENNSLA/02/TOP/rlinking.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Lamb</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-32894</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Lamb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2011 13:46:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-32894</guid>
		<description>And I&#039;ve definitely heard /miːljɜː/ with linking r, probably as often as not. (Sorry, JWL, no chapter and verse.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And I&#8217;ve definitely heard /miːljɜː/ with linking r, probably as often as not. (Sorry, JWL, no chapter and verse.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-32777</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 10:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-32777</guid>
		<description>dw - the only word I can find is &quot;milieu&quot;, which LPD gives as /miːljɜː/ (with stress on either syllable) for the principal pronunciation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dw &#8211; the only word I can find is &#8220;milieu&#8221;, which LPD gives as /miːljɜː/ (with stress on either syllable) for the principal pronunciation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dw</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-32375</link>
		<dc:creator>dw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:06:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-32375</guid>
		<description>@Kat:

The vowel of &quot;bird&quot; nearly always derives from words that historically contained /r/, and are therefore spelled with R.  It&#039;s therefore not possible for them to feature intrusive R (if a phonetic [r] occurred, it would instead be classified as linking R).

The only exceptions would be recent loanwords and proper names from languages such as French and German, whose rounded front vowels are often approximated in Southern British English by the vowel of &quot;bird&quot;.  For example, the name of French football (soccer) player &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Leboeuf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Frank LeBoeuf&lt;/a&gt; was usually rendered /ləˈbɜ:f/ in the English media.  However, for such a word to supply an example of intrusive R, the vowel would have to be word-final, and I&#039;m having a hard time coming up with any examples.

In American English, the FACE, GOAT or GOOSE vowels are usually used instead for such loanwords.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Kat:</p>
<p>The vowel of &#8220;bird&#8221; nearly always derives from words that historically contained /r/, and are therefore spelled with R.  It&#8217;s therefore not possible for them to feature intrusive R (if a phonetic [r] occurred, it would instead be classified as linking R).</p>
<p>The only exceptions would be recent loanwords and proper names from languages such as French and German, whose rounded front vowels are often approximated in Southern British English by the vowel of &#8220;bird&#8221;.  For example, the name of French football (soccer) player <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Leboeuf" rel="nofollow">Frank LeBoeuf</a> was usually rendered /ləˈbɜ:f/ in the English media.  However, for such a word to supply an example of intrusive R, the vowel would have to be word-final, and I&#8217;m having a hard time coming up with any examples.</p>
<p>In American English, the FACE, GOAT or GOOSE vowels are usually used instead for such loanwords.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kat</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-32370</link>
		<dc:creator>Kat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 15:21:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-32370</guid>
		<description>Very interesting!
But why, Why are there very few instances of intrusive /r/ in other vowels such as the vowel in bird ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting!<br />
But why, Why are there very few instances of intrusive /r/ in other vowels such as the vowel in bird ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mike</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-31966</link>
		<dc:creator>mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:10:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-31966</guid>
		<description>Thanks dw; she makes some plausible speculations in 6.3. Although both my parents were RP speakers, I grew up in Scotland, where hardly anyone said PipaAlpha, so London BBC was very noticeable.

In discussion I have found some English RP speakers unable to hear the distinction until exaggerated. Brain patterning is obviously important.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks dw; she makes some plausible speculations in 6.3. Although both my parents were RP speakers, I grew up in Scotland, where hardly anyone said PipaAlpha, so London BBC was very noticeable.</p>
<p>In discussion I have found some English RP speakers unable to hear the distinction until exaggerated. Brain patterning is obviously important.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dw</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-31898</link>
		<dc:creator>dw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:31:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-31898</guid>
		<description>@mike:

Both linking and intrusive R are optional features of the accents that allow them.

They are both less frequent when adjacent to proper names (as in your &quot;Westminster Abbey&quot; and &quot;Piper Alpha&quot;).  The study that found this is here (linked to from the intrusive / linking R Wikipedia page).

https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/2335/1/Dr.Avh.Bente%20Hannisdal.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@mike:</p>
<p>Both linking and intrusive R are optional features of the accents that allow them.</p>
<p>They are both less frequent when adjacent to proper names (as in your &#8220;Westminster Abbey&#8221; and &#8220;Piper Alpha&#8221;).  The study that found this is here (linked to from the intrusive / linking R Wikipedia page).</p>
<p><a href="https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/2335/1/Dr.Avh.Bente%20Hannisdal.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/2335/1/Dr.Avh.Bente%20Hannisdal.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mike</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-31791</link>
		<dc:creator>mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Feb 2011 11:06:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-31791</guid>
		<description>As a native speaker of English English, I understand the intrusive R. What baffles me is that the same people who say lawRandorder also say WestminstaAbbey. When the Piper Alpha oil rig collapsed, I don&#039;t think a single BBC professional ever said anything but PipaAlpha.

So why do they miss it out when it should be there?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a native speaker of English English, I understand the intrusive R. What baffles me is that the same people who say lawRandorder also say WestminstaAbbey. When the Piper Alpha oil rig collapsed, I don&#8217;t think a single BBC professional ever said anything but PipaAlpha.</p>
<p>So why do they miss it out when it should be there?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-19586</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-19586</guid>
		<description>Paul - Your first two differences are quite right, but I don&#039;t feel that I make any distinction in lip position between the two words. If you &quot;have to&quot; find three ways in which they are different, I imagine this must be for an assignment. Please let us all know the &quot;correct&quot; answer when you get it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul &#8211; Your first two differences are quite right, but I don&#8217;t feel that I make any distinction in lip position between the two words. If you &#8220;have to&#8221; find three ways in which they are different, I imagine this must be for an assignment. Please let us all know the &#8220;correct&#8221; answer when you get it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/intrusive-r/comment-page-1#comment-19520</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.linguism.co.uk/?p=520#comment-19520</guid>
		<description>awsome thanks! I was confused because I thought the final /a:/ sound was actually an /ǝ/. But I guess you are right.

If you wanna help me with another problem I would appreciate it (even though it has nothing to do with the intrusive &#039;r&#039;). I&#039;m not a native English speaker so pronunciation sometimes gives me a hard time. 
The problem is that I have to find three ways in which the pronunciation of the word cease differs from sees. My suggestions are:

1.The final “s” in sees [si:z] is a voiced /z/ sound, whereas the “s” is voiceless in cease [si:s].
2.The duration of the vowel /i/ is slightly longer in sees than in cease.
3.The lip position of the /i/ vowel is slightly more spread in sees than it is in cease.

If anyone would like to comment on them please fell free to do so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>awsome thanks! I was confused because I thought the final /a:/ sound was actually an /ǝ/. But I guess you are right.</p>
<p>If you wanna help me with another problem I would appreciate it (even though it has nothing to do with the intrusive &#8216;r&#8217;). I&#8217;m not a native English speaker so pronunciation sometimes gives me a hard time.<br />
The problem is that I have to find three ways in which the pronunciation of the word cease differs from sees. My suggestions are:</p>
<p>1.The final “s” in sees [si:z] is a voiced /z/ sound, whereas the “s” is voiceless in cease [si:s].<br />
2.The duration of the vowel /i/ is slightly longer in sees than in cease.<br />
3.The lip position of the /i/ vowel is slightly more spread in sees than it is in cease.</p>
<p>If anyone would like to comment on them please fell free to do so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

