Language desk
< December 29	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 30[edit]

Vowels before R[edit]

Why are vowels before R so different in English from vowels in general?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some examples of what you mean? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because R-colored vowels. Henry ^Flower 20:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the late eighteenth century, in dialects of English that would later develop into modern British and American standard English, there was a rule that the "checked vowels" [ɪ ɛ æ ɒ ʊ ʌ] could not appear directly before an /r/ which was either word-final or followed by another consonant sound. The only vowels which could appear in such a position were the "free" vowels (long vowels and diphthongs) and unstressed [ə]. In addition, there were several sounds which occurred only before /r/ -- [eɪ] did not occur before /r/ within a word-stem, and instead [ɛː] occurred. Similarly, [oʊ] did not occur before /r/ within a word-stem, and instead [oː] occurred (often with a tendency to merge with [ɔː], though I'm not sure if this happened as early as the 18th century). And finally there's [ɜː], which can occur only before /r/.

Since that time, /r/ which is word-final or followed by another consonant sound has of course been dropped in "non-rhotic" dialects (sometimes leaving a schwa-like offglide behind), while in many varieties of "rhotic" American English, long-vowels are usually shortened before /r/, "marry" merges with "merry" etc. AnonMoos (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd quibble with "there was a rule", AnonMoos. Many people reading this would be inclined to interpret this as something which had to be taught. I think you mean a rule in the historical linguistics sense of a formalised descripton of a change that happened: nobody decided it or taught it, it was just how people spoke. --ColinFine (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists would have little difficulty in describing it as a "rule", but there's no problem with using the words "regularity" or "generalization" if you prefer one of them. Very, very few of those whose speech followed the "no checked vowels before /r/ which is word final or followed by another consonant" pattern at the time would have been aware of it, of course... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italian goodbye[edit]

What is the difference between "arrivederci" and "arrivederla"? --rossb (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally, arrivederci means "until we see each other again", whereas arrivederla means "until I see you (formal) again". Arrivederci is all-purpose; it can be used both with people you address informally (tu) or formally (Lei), whereas arrivederla is only for people you address as Lei. I tend to think of arrivederla as sort of "extra formal", possibly a tiny bit over-the-top in most situations, but I do know people who use it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]