Re: History of French

From: Ruud Harmsen (realemailseesite01_at_rudhar.com)
Date: 09/18/04 

Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:48:55 +0200

Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:11:04 +0200: Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>: in
sci.lang:

>Brian M. Scott writes:
>
>> Imagine what his explanation would be like if his own /r/
>> were 'bunched r' instead of retroflex!
>
>I have yet to see a clear explanation of "bunched 'r'"; can you provide
>one?

I suppose it means the tongue tip is not curled up and backwards, but
the whole tongue is retracted, i.e. shifted backward.
But it's no use bothering about the difference, because the acoustic
effect of either is virtually the same, as Daniel Jones already
pointed out in 1956 or earlier. So students can learn either, whatever
they find easier to learn.
What is even easier course, is to learn non-rhotic English (many kinds
of American English are also non-rhotic, not just British varieties).
In that case, 'world' is simply [w@:ld], which is easier and not half
as ugly. 

-- 
Ruud Harmsen - http://rudhar.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: History of French
    ... > I suppose it means the tongue tip is not curled up and backwards, ... > the whole tongue is retracted, ... > What is even easier course, is to learn non-rhotic English (many kinds ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: phonetics (I cant find where we did this just now)
    ... *ch*urch and curl it upwards) ... but take the sound and pass it backwards along the tongue ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)