This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nottinghamshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NottinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject NottinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject NottinghamshireNottinghamshire articles
we have this as NOOR-mun-tun on SOOR. Is that correct? kwami (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, i'm a little unsure of the /əʊr/, it should be /ɔː/. And the /ɔ/ in the "on" could easily be a schwa. - Francis Tyers· 15:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. /ɔː/ (/ɔər/) as in four, or /ɔː/ (/ɔr/) as in for? kwami (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four / for are pronounced the same for me (and people from the area), so it should probably be /ɔː/ (/ɔr/) as in for. - Francis Tyers· 10:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about Londoners? Or isn't there a set RP ? kwami (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course, Londoners have many many accents, and the majority do not speak RP. Regardless, pretty much all of them (modern RP speakers included) would pronounce 'four' and 'for' the same (as /ɔː/ (/ɔr/)). --Wytukaze (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you guys went to the trouble of having this conversation and then using the wrong one on the page, but Longman's backs up the Brit on saying there's no schwa there. — LlywelynII 22:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
