• irmoz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Nope, just not rhoticising the “r” in “horse”. Different to just removing it, which would create “hose”.

    • Stuka@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Any r sound at all in sauce is adding a sound. If you notice it doesn’t have an r.

      • irmoz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        There’s no ‘r’ sound in sauce, you’re right, and that’s why I don’t put one there :P

        • Stuka@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Well unless you speak differently than the now 5 differently accented British speakers I just listened to, you do indeed add an r sound to sauce.

          The British pronunciation of horse, despite some subtlety that varies across accents on the r (which is also a thing here) is not remarkable from an American ear.

          If it were an issue of rhoticity your horse would sound more like the American sauce, but its the other way around.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            You’re being rather pushy, here. I do not add R to sauce, or remove one from horse. I, like many other English speakers, just don’t rhoticise the R in horse.

            The British pronunciation of horse, despite some subtlety that varies across accents on the r (which is also a thing here) is not remarkable from an American ear.

            Okay? I didn’t say anything about being remarkable. It’s just different. Rhotic accents will hit the R, while non-rhotic ones won’t. I’m not sure what your problem is, here.

            If it were an issue of rhoticity your horse would sound more like the American sauce, but its the other way around.

            It is an issue of rhoticity. Literally the only difference is the rhotic R. I say horse like sauce because I don’t rhoticise the R. This doesn’t make my horse sound like an American sauce - and why would it? Why would a non-rhotic speaker pronounce a word without an R anything like a rhotic speaker’s R?

            • Stuka@lemmy.world
              cake
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              It is an issue of rhoticity. Literally the only difference is the rhotic R. I say horse like sauce because I don’t rhoticise the R. This doesn’t make my horse sound like an American sauce - and why would it? Why would a non-rhotic speaker pronounce a word without an R anything like a rhotic speaker’s R?

              A non rhotic r in horse does not make a non rhotic r in sauce. That’s not a question of rhoticity because how you pronounce the r sound doesn’t matter…its that there’s an r sound at all in sauce.

              You agreed with this in another comment regarding the British pronunciation of sauce sounding like ‘source’. That again has nothing to do with the rhoticity of the r in source, only that there is an r in sauce.

              Yet here you refuse to come to the same conclusion that you did on another comment because 🤷

              I am not saying this is specific to you, I’m saying this is a difference in the pronunciation of the word between british and american english. I think the issue here is the comparison to another word rather than someone just linking side by side pronunciations of the word in question: sauce. Horse and source are irrelevant. Side by side there is a clear addition of an r sound in sauce from American English to British. Neither is wrong or right, and there’s nothing you should be getting offended over here.

              • irmoz@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                A non rhotic r in horse does not make a non rhotic r in sauce. That’s not a question of rhoticity because how you pronounce the r sound doesn’t matter…its that there’s an r sound at all in sauce.

                There is no R sound in sauce.

                You agreed with this in another comment regarding the British pronunciation of sauce sounding like ‘source’. That again has nothing to do with the rhoticity of the r in source, only that there is an r in sauce.

                There is no R in sauce.

                Yet here you refuse to come to the same conclusion that you did on another comment because 🤷

                Been pretty consistent on this, dude.

                I am not saying this is specific to you, I’m saying this is a difference in the pronunciation of the word. The issue here is the comparison to another word rather than someone just linking side by side pronunciations of the word in question: sauce.

                There is no R sound in any of this. As someone else pointed out, it’s an “aw” sound. Saws. Haws.

                • Stuka@lemmy.world
                  cake
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  You can type that all you want, but the fact is that there is an r sound when you say sauce . Delusional, I guess.