one vowel sounds like "er" without "r"?

The worst part of non-rhotic speech is that "hyper-" and "hypo-" are often pronounced the same.

The best part of non-rhotic speech is that seeing as "farther" and "father" are now pronounced the same, people use the word god intended us to, and say "further". (Most times I've seen the word "farther" in Australian writing it's because Word forgot to put a squiggle underneath it. "Farther" should be removed from the dictionaries; it's already been flung a fair distance away. Unfortunately I think it landed in America...)

Someone should fling that pesky bird into Felix The Cat's tucker box.

We should all be non-rhotic now? Excellent! One less lettah I have to deal with! I'm putting a piece of tape ovah that key right now (I assume I still have leave to use it when it doesn't end a wo'd, right? Othahwise my comprehensibility may begin to suffah mo' than it already does!)

I had no idear (hey! Wheh'd that Ah come from?) that "fahthah" was restricted to Amedican usage. Great! I can scrub that one too! I'll be damned; my accent is cleah-ing up by leaps and bounds! One step fuhthah towahd dialectical unity -- or some soht of speech impediment that will have everyone stah-ing at me in confusion....

<<Someone should fling that pesky bird into Felix The Cat's tucker box.>>

Well, Felix the Cat bettah bring his appetite; cassowaries stand 2 metahs tall and weigh in at 60 kilograms. And to think, today was Thanksgiving heah -- that would have made a much mo' impressive dinnah than tuhkey!

And put some tape ova yaw mouth while yaw at it!

Scwubs, Amedican usage? Ah, medico tewminology.

Don't talk to me about scrubs; I live in them five days a week. A bit like wearing pajamas all day.

Oh, don't let me mislead you on the word "farther". They might still use it in England. There's likely to be some people about in Australia who use, too. But they're all insane (by definition, mind).

(PS: You still need to pronounce the R in "clearing", "staring", "more impressive"! If you're a nawmal non-rhotic speaka, that is! And you can't just delete the key eitha, because you still need to say it in "rain" and "train"! )

<<(In parts of England that are along the rhotic isoglosses, you get people speaking "hyperhotically", pronouncing /r/ after many vowels that are homophonous in non-rhotic accents, if you know what I mean. So they might say "la[r]st" or "daugh[r]te[r]" for "last" and "daughter" (presumably such regions use broad A in "last", "bath" etc). These regions have tend to shortly then-after become non-rhotic.) >>

Yes, I've heard this, though only with /A:/ and /I@/, not /O:/: "spa" as [spA:r\], "staff" as [stA:r\f], "idea" as [VIdI@r\] (or something like that). They weren't followed by vowels, so this wasn't ordinary intrusive R, and they were all in south-west England type rhotic accents. It sounds a bit weird when you first hear it.

<<Oh, don't let me mislead you on the word "farther". They might still use it in England. There's likely to be some people about in Australia who use, too. But they're all insane (by definition, mind).>>

I think the only times I (from northern England) have ever used the word "farther" have been discussing whether or not it's homophonous with "father".

<<(PS: You still need to pronounce the R in "clearing", "staring", "more impressive"! If you're a nawmal non-rhotic speaka, that is! And you can't just delete the key eitha, because you still need to say it in "rain" and "train"! ) >>

But dammit, Felix, I thought you said this would be EASIER, and follow SIMPLER rules!

It does, in pronounciation when following (including between) vowels. In those contexts, it's entirely derivable from the vowels themselves!

I don't see why it isn't just easier to pronounce it everywhere it's written than to have to figure out when to pronounce it versus when not to. Some time ago, on this forum, a Brit once accused Americans of putting "r"s where they don't belong. Excuse me? They're WRITTEN where they belong and we pronounce them as such. You are the one making "r"s silent in some places and adding them in others! ;)

I, too, would think that always pronouncing R's is easier than trying to remember where to put them and where to ignore them. Of course, if you naturally speak a non-rhotic type of English, you internalize those rules long before you're even aware of them, but if you're a rhotic speaker, it ain't so easy...

The thing that most fascinates me about intrusive [r/] in non-rhotic accents is that it doesn't even have to apply across word boundaries. For instance, many non-rhotic speakers do say ["dr\O:r\IN] for "drawing," in addition to expected intrusive [r\] in something like "I draw a car" [aI dr\O: r\@ k_hA:]. It's ["dr\A.iN] and [aI dr\A @ k_hAr\] for me, by the way.

It is interesting that for rhotic speakers like me, I simply have always taken it for granted that every [r\] (and rhotacized vowel) I learned to produce as a young kid long before I learned to write happened to correspond exactly to the orthography when I eventually learned it.

<<If you're a nawmal non-rhotic speaka>>

Haha. According to my dialect "nawmal" would be pronounced ["nAm5=] :) Conversely, when I see amateur non-rhotic would-be spelling reformers insisting spellings like "talk" should be written "tork," I have to chuckle.

Well of COURSE, Uriel! I'm not the one snipping at them for not pronouncing them. This is just my reaction to topics that boil down to rhotic vs non-rhotic. I'm not saying either is better or worse. I'll let you say "to-mah-to" and I'll say "to-may-to."