Much is being made of the intrusive "r", e.g. saying "I saw-rit" for I saw it". Is it also considered poor diction to omit the "r" where it does exist? For example, our local BBC TV newsreader will say "40 year-old" without pronouncing the "r", making his speech sound stilted and affected. The French have a rule that end-consonants that are not pronounced when the word stands on its own, ARE pronounced when the following word begins with a vowel to make the sentence flow better. Surely this is also acceptable in English? David.
Top answer
g. saying "I saw-rit" for I saw it". Is it also considered ...
— Usenet
g.
saying "I saw-rit" for I saw it".
Is it also considered ...
the following word begins with a vowel to make the sentence flow better.
[/nq] Do you find the "r" missing from his "forty" stilted and affected, too?
Free · every Monday
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
[nq:1]Much is being made of the intrusive "r", e.g. saying "I saw-rit" for I saw it". Is it also considered ... the following word begins with a vowel to make the sentence flow better. Surely this is also acceptable in English?[/nq] Do you find the "r" missing from his "forty" stilted and affected, too?
johnF " it would be a gross error to suppose that any deviation from the estab
[nq:1]Much is being made of the intrusive "r", e.g. saying "I saw-rit" for I saw it". Is it also considered ... the following word begins witha vowel to make the sentence flow better. Surely this is also acceptable in English? David.[/nq] I have a friend from New England (RI) that would say something more along the lines of "I sore-rit". Of course, she also calls the water fountain a "bubbler"
[nq:1]Much is being made of the intrusive "r", e.g. saying "I saw-rit" for I saw it". Is it also considered ... the following word begins with a vowel to make the sentence flow better. Surely this is also acceptable in English?[/nq] Much? This is the first I've seen here. But perhaps a better example is "drawing", which throughout my lifetime I have occasionally heard as "draw-ring". English s
[nq:1]Much is being made of the intrusive "r", e.g. saying "I saw-rit" for I saw it". Is it also considered ... the following word begins with a vowel to make the sentence flow better. Surely this is also acceptable in English?[/nq] German has an opposing convention - words which start with a vowel are given an initial glottal stop. 'Tis the season of "For Runto Wuss a Child is Born" and "
[nq:1]Much is being made of the intrusive "r", e.g. saying "I saw-rit" for I saw it". Is it also considered poor diction to omit the "r" where it does exist?[/nq] It's not "poor diction" to say "I saw rit". [nq:1]For example, our local BBC TV newsreader will say "40 year-old" without pronouncing the "r", making his speech sound stilted ... when the following word begins witha vowel to make
Are we talking about diction (word choice, as in "dictionary") or pronuncitation? [nq:2]word stands on its own, ARE pronounced when the following word beginswith[/nq] [nq:1]a[/nq] [nq:2]vowel to make the sentence flow better. Surely this is also acceptablein English?[/nq] How so?
[nq:1]Are we talking about diction (word choice, as in "dictionary") or pronuncitation?[/nq] We're talking about top-posting, frank. How quickly you forget your manners.
Bob Lieblich Enjoyed "pronuncitation," but suspect it's just a typo
[nq:1]It's not "poor diction" to say "I saw rit".[/nq] I agree. When someone says "draw-ring," it has nothing to do with enunciation. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can find that offensive (and I'm a rhotic speaker).