Talk:R-colored vowel

Schwer
I've never heard the name "schwer" for this sound and suspect it is a neologism. There is already an article r-colored vowel which describes this sound and its near ally. There's no need for separate articles, and neologisms in titles are best avoided. Therefore this should be merged with r-colored vowel. --Angr/undefined 15:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a neologism. Check out these google results and you will find many articles that refer to this sound as the schwer http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=schwer+vowel&btnG=Search . Foosher 15:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't "schwer" also the word meaning "suffering" in German? Could the Google search be picking that up? --HappyCamper 15:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's the word for "heavy" in German, and the Google search is picking up a lot of those. Nevertheless there are a few sites using "schwer" as the name of the r-colored schwa. --Angr/undefined 16:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * schwer. that's funny.  on a more serious note, how is the claimed "schwer" here different, from a phonological standpoint, from the  as explained previously in the article?  It's not.  So why does it have a separate section?  Better question, tho, why is there no coverage of the fact that ɚ is a convention used to represent both rhotic and non-rhotic prounciations?  In GA,  is actually pronounced, as is , whereas in non-rhotic pronunciations  is pronounced  and  is pronounced . Tom e rtalk  16:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, because it isn't. is an r-colored schwa, which in American English (but not necessarily in other languages with the sound) can be interpreted as a syllabic allophone of, though not everyone does interpret it that way. Non-rhotic accents of English don't have  or as surface sounds or  or as phonemes. --Angr ( tɔk ) 17:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hrmm. I wonder where I got that idea from then. I guess I need to hear a sound file for then. Tom e rtalk 17:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Using or  for  or is like representing  as .  Not as a degree of appropriateness, I just mean the relationship between "schwer" and the approximant . AEuSoes1 03:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "schwer" might be a typo of "schwar" which is a term I've seen for, I guess it's an analogy to Schwa. --Chlämens 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Singers
Most American singers I hear don't use R-coloured vowels in their singing, even though they do in their speech, so I added a counterexample to Celine Dion. I don't have any good reference for this and welcome an improvement, or someone just striking the whole paragraph.


 * Perhaps opera. The [æ] sound is another that's discouraged by voice teachers as being cacophonic, and that's probably because Italian is thought of as the language of music, and Italian doen't have [æ]. Or perhaps rhotic vowels were once considered a provincialism compared to prestigeous non-rhotic dialects like RP? kwami 01:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, Celine Dion is Canadian, though I don't know if that's really all that important for this article, since a good deal of Canadians speak with the standard American accent. &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee @  19:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably also relevant that, conversely, a lot of British pop singers seem to use R-coloured vowels in singing when they wouldn't in speech (although I have no good reference for this beyond Rhotic and non-rhotic accents). —Greg K Nicholson 15:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not just Opera, but traditional singing generally. De-emphasizing or completely eliding the r sound on the ends of syllables is a standard part of traditional vocal training.  Go to a choir practice sometime.  They also teach you not to hold consonants, such as s.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.138.71 (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Rolled r's
Isn't one the reasons that the r-colored vowels don't happen, in say, Spanish, is because they roll their r's? Cameron Nedland 23:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In standard Spanish, a single r is tapped once /ɾ/ and a double r (rr) (or a word-initial r) is trilled /r/. In practice this isn't always the case, but that's not "why" Spanish doesn't have r-colored vowels.  In most pronunciations of American English, the tapped phoneme /ɾ/ occurs quite commonly (as in most Americans' prounciation of words like "ladder" /ˈlæ·ɾɹ̩/) and American English, which pronounces "r" almost exclusively as /ɹ/ and more frequently has r-colored vowels (since most American English speakers speak rhotic dialects) than British and Irish English speakers, yet their [the Brits and Irish] pronunciations also have r-colored vowels (although less frequently, from what I understand).  I assume that the original pronunciation of "r" in English was either /ɾ/ or /r/ and that the pronunciation /ɹ/ is an innovation.  All of this to say that the probably "reason" that Spanish doesn't normally have r-colored vowels is because standard Spanish doesn't have /ɹ/.  I haven't read much about it, but I would guess that Spanish, German and various Slavic languages have palatalized l-colored vowels and that Russian's dark/heavy "l" l-colors vowels as well (albeit not palatally, obviously).  In upper Midwestern AmE, I know I frequently hear l-colored vowels (more like the l-coloring in Brazilian Portuguese, oddly enough) that turns some people's pronunciation, e.g., of "Milwaukee" into what sounds very much like /mo·ˈɑ·ki/ (that's a fun example, although I rather strongly suspect that the former /w/ plays a large role in turning /ɪlʷ/ into /o/).  Tom e rtalk  03:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's related, but not the cause, so much as another result of the same phonetic phenomenon, namely, that the Spanish r is pronounced with the tongue in a different part of the mouth than the English r. The English r is much more difficult to trill because of this, but it forms blends more readily, especially when preceding a plosive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.138.71 (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Portuguese
An anon just added "and some dialects of Portuguese" to the end of the first paragraph. I've never heard of r-colored vowels being present in any dialect of Portuguese, and would like verification of the claim before it is returned to the article. --Angr 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the girl here? Her name's Michelle. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

R-colored vowels in Dutch???
I am Dutch, but I seldomly hear people talk with rhotic sounds. (Except for some isolated individuals in just a few words.) Moreover it might on occasion be heard in English borrowings, but only by speakers who really proficient in English. Can anyone elaborate the claim of this article that it occurs in Dutch? The above occurrences of a rhotic vowel look insufficient to me to claim that they "occur in Dutch". --JorisvS 18:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any references right to hand, but I was under the impression that in many dialects of Dutch a word like water is pronounced with an r-colored schwa in the last syllable. Angr/ talk 19:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * For now I can tell that some Hollandic dialects of Dutch seem to rhoticize vowel before an r-consonant, but the r-sound is usually still pronounced. This change is dialectal however, since this is not ABN (Algemeen Beschaafd Nederlands). --JorisvS 12:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I still want to tell you this: In standard Dutch the word water is pronounced . --JorisvS 15:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it really or ? The difference is important - is the voiceless  followed by one segment, or two? I think it's  ( to be exact, with a pre-velar bunched approximant. I don't think a true  or  exists in Dutch). That's how I usually hear it, as a sequence of a pure vowel followed by a consonant, much like the  sequence in African American Vernacular English. You can exchange the final sound in  for any other valid realization of  and you'll still get five sounds in the word (though this argument is much stronger the other way around). I think that only  (which you can also hear) has four sounds.
 * is absolutely standard in the Netherlands. On the other hand, (which is articulatory very close to  = ) is non-standard. I'm not sure whether the  realization occurs after the schwa, but it does occur after a stressed  (as in sport, standard  ~  ~ )
 * Per The Phonetics of English and Dutch (ed. 5, pp. 200–1), for  occurs only after, so not after . But the point stands - it is almost exactly the same as the pre-velar bunched  - it's just slightly further forward and, well, not bunched. After other vowels excluding the schwa, a non-syllabic  can occur. After the schwa alone,  can only be dropped as far as vocalic realizations are concerned. Sol505000 (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Formant 3
From the image, it seems as though the only difference between regular schwa and r-colored schwa is formant three. Doesn't formant three indicate lip rounding? Considering the English rhotic is labialized, it seems as though the image doesn't indicate the R-coloredness of "schwer" just the lip-rounding aspect. That being the case, the image doesn't seem nearly as relevant. AEuSoes1 17:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think lip rounding is indicated by a lowered F2, not F3. Angr (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that F1 indicates height and F2 indicates backness. I vaguely recall Ladefoged saying something to that effect in vowels and consonants. AEuSoes1 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, F2 indicates backness, but it also indicates rounding. The F2s of and  are very close. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that languages that distinguish between and  are rare if not nonexistant?  If F3 doesn't indicate rounding, what does it indicate? AEuSoes1 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does mean that such languages are rare (though I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few). I really don't know what else F3 indicates besides rhotacization (and I don't know what F4 indicates at all), and I've taught a class in acoustic phonetics myself! Angr (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some Bostonians pronounce "certain" as [sʏtn̩], which is does not rhyme, I'm pretty sure, with "bitten".--Atemperman (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh, of course they don't. Somehow I thought I was going to be contrasting [ʏ] with [].--Atemperman (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparatus
Both American Heritage and MW give pronunciations of apparatus with the r being [ɹ] at the beginning of the third syllable.--Atemperman 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal with 'Vocalic r'
Do it. They cover the same ground.Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit unsure. The material currently at Vocalic r does seem to refer to R-coloring. However, I thought a vocalic r was a syllabic consonant, like the Czech "vowel" r... FilipeS 15:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's true. There's no mention of that on the page.  There's some muddy water between the two (i.e. some R-colored vowels can be considered manifestations of vocalic r).  I would suggest that, if we want to mention the syllabic /r/ (such as in a number of Slavic languages) that we could merge the two pages under the title "vocalic r" (i.e. merging r-colored vowel to vocalic r rather than the other way around) and describe both the rhotic vowels and the syllabic /r/ in different sections.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking it might be better to do a conservative edit: move the text that is currently at 'Vocalic r' here, but turn the other article into a redirect to Syllabic consonant. FilipeS 16:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. That does sound better.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

After rereading the Vocalic r, I realised that some of it did not deal with R-coloring, so I decided to let the article remain for the time being, and merge only the section that was out of place into this one. FilipeS 22:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it's talking about an English language phenomenon, which is pretty much always an r-colored vowel. Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  23:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. I'm not thinking very brightly, lately. I will merge the rest when I have the time. FilipeS 23:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind again about 'Vocalic r'. Since it seems it's used as a synonym of an r-colored vowel in some contexts, I thought it was best to redirect it to this article. FilipeS 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanskrit ऋ
It seems as though the Sanskrit ऋ (and its longer equivalent ॠ) deserve to be mentioned here: they are mentioned as vowel sounds ("containing [consonantal] r") by the ancient grammarians, and they are usually thought to have been pronounced as the vocalic retroflex approximant in ancient times. (Today they are usually pronounced "ri" as a result of changes in Hindi and other Indian languages). Grover cleveland 16:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it sounds like it would be something that is a vocalic r but not an r-colored vowel. Maybe we should rename the article to "vocalic r."  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oxford and Midwestern English
The Oxford Dictionary ©2008 appears to be specific about the rhotic applying to Midwestern American English rather than general American English. They further provide the examples, e.g., Midwestern American English, in which r is pronounced before a consonant (as in hard) and at the ends of words (as in far).

I'm not religious about this, but offer this information in case some of you are.

regards, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction in Sanskrit ऋ section
If the Sanskrit vowel ऋ corresponds to a PIE vowel, then how can it be retroflex? Weren't retroflex sounds in Indo-Aryan a result of Dravidian influence? GSMR (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dravidian influenced how Indo-Aryan developed. The retroflexes in Sanskrit aren't simply the result of borrowing.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  05:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! I knew it! According to Kurgan proponents retroflex consonants in Indo-Aryan are a telltale sign that India was not the Urheimat! But apparently retroflex consonants can develop independently as they do with other Indo-Iranian languages (like Pashto).  Oh, what science... GSMR (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

So you're okay with that now? Retroflex or not, a consonant like r can be syllabic. No contradiction there. This article itself says, “A vowel may have either the tip or blade of the tongue turned up during at least part of the articulation of the vowel (a retroflex articulation)”... So I'm removing. Okay? —Gyopi (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I can see your original question was something different, but I don't think that's a contradiction, either (though 'Citation needed' there is still valid).—Gyopi (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving the section on Sanskrit (which I originally, misguidedly added) to this section: I'm convinced it doesn't belong in the article:  also the section on Czech etc. syllabic [r] is not an "R-colored vowel"! It's not even a vowel of any kind... Grover cleveland (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The ancient Indian language Sanskrit possessed short and long versions of a vowel sound often referred to as "vocalic r". It is represented in Devanagari by ऋ (short form) and ॠ (long form), and in IAST transliteration by ṛ (short form) and ṝ (long form), and is thought to correspond to original vocalic "l" or "r" in Proto-Indo-European. The grammarian Pāṇini classified this vowel as retroflex and its pronunciation is thought to have been a retroflex approximant in classical Sanskrit (c. 500 BC). Earlier grammarians classified its sound in the Vedic period as velar. In Middle Indo-Aryan languages, the sound developed into a short vowel, usually /i/, but sometimes /a/ or /u/ (the latter sound especially when adjacent to a labial consonant). However, when Sanskrit words containing this sound are borrowed into modern Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi or Nepali its pronunciation changes to (short form) or  (long form), leading to forms such as "Krishna" for Kṛṣṇa and "Rigveda" for ṛgveda, a pronunciation that is also prevalent among contemporary pandits. In the Southern Indo-Aryan language Sinhala, vocalic r in Sanskrit words is pronounced as [ur] or [ru], depending on the phonological context. In Czech and Slovak, the syllabic r is present in many common words. Strč prst skrz krk! (Czech and Slovak for “Stick a finger through your throat!”) is a sentence with no obvious vowels, where each of the four r’s is syllabic (the most sonorant segment of a syllable), or in other words, vocalic (acting as a vowel).
 * References

Just American, or other rhotic varieties of Engilsh as well?
Are r-colored vowels only found in American English, or in other rhotic varieties of English as well (e.g. West Country, Scots)? (Although presumably they would be r-coloured;) ) Iapetus (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're found all over. Phonetically, many non-rhotic dialects of Southern England also feature r-colo(u)red vowels in statements like the fur is here. — Æµ§œš¹  [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]  15:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed
The sections "In singing", "In Mandarin Chinese" and "In Quebec French" need source citations.Lisapaloma (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"Fear" and "bear"
I dimly recall from past reading that in General American there is r-coloring in words like "fear" and "bear", though there is no mention of it in this article.

I thought that "fear" is between /fɪr/ and /fir/ for many Americans (though /fɪr/ or /fir/ for others), and that this in-between sound never appears except before /r/.

And I thought that "bear" is between /bɛr/ and /ber/ for many Americans (though /bɛr/ or /ber/ for others), and that again this in-between sound never appears except before /r/.

Am I just remembering wrong here? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, Triphthong says that in British Received Pronunciation, [eɪ] becomes [ɛə] before /r/. (Sorry I can't render the diacritic underneath the ɪ and the ə.) Duoduoduo (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"bear" has a "tensed ash (ae)" in the current trend of American accents, sitting in the shadow of the cot-caught merger. This is sometimes loosely transcribed with [ɛə], but in reality, many languages have ɛ phonemes that overlap this sound. Also, it's somewhere between ɛ and æ, but even further fronted (in terms of formants). This doesn't have anything to do with r-coloring; r-coloring is a process that makes vowels more rhotic. 24.194.51.254 (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Rhotic Vowel
I propose that this article be renamed to Rhotic vowel, which currently redirects to this page. The primary reasoning is for consistency across article titles. As the article for R-like consonants is named Rhotic consonant, it would make since for R-like vowels to likewise be named Rhotic Vowel. This also would stay consistent with other article titles such as Nasal vowel. Zombiedude347 (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

R-colored vowels are funky
would this make /ɹ/ a semivowel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livakno (talk • contribs) 12:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. An approximant is a non-syllabic vocoid. There being a syllabic counterpart in the same phonological system allows you to consider it a semivowel. Nardog (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Tagging by the IP
IP, please re-read the lead, specifically this part: R-colored vowels can be articulated in various ways: the tip or blade of the tongue may be turned up during at least part of the articulation of the vowel (a retroflex articulation) or the back of the tongue may be bunched. In addition, the vocal tract may often be constricted in the region of the epiglottis. What does it have to do with Talk:Voiced_alveolar_and_postalveolar_approximants (pharyngealization aside, can be pharyngealized as most other consonants)? I was talking about rhotic consonants, not rhotacized (retroflexed/pharyngealized/whatever) vowels. Sol505000 (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * okay let me move the discussion here:
 * Concerning the article apical vowel rhotic vowel (this article), I did not put words in your mouth. In that this discussion You raised two questions: whether the two sounds are phonemically different and if they are whether it's OK or it's OR to apply an ad hoc phonology term (rhotic) for phonetic purpose for convenience. The first question affects with that article only but the second one affects both (since the topic of that article is purely phonetic yet the full article is filled with phonology terms and discussion). My answers is "OK" while your answer is "OR". Once a questiones is asked it has to be discussed, and the asker doesn't own the question once it's in public discussion. So it's has nothing to do with "put words in my mouth" or something and I didn't mention you at all when tagging that article, but feel free to give opinions like "I don't think the second question affects that article" and elaborate your reasoning here.
 * For rhotic vowel I believe if using phonology term on phonetics is OR then it should be moved to retroflex vowel or vowel coarticulated with retroflex approximant. The tone of this entire article is weird since apart from phonetic topic the entire article is filled with phonology discussion and more importantly the article title is named after phonology term. --146.96.28.123 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never edited apical vowel or the corresponding talk page, you must've meant voiced alveolar and postalveolar approximants and the corresponding talk page.
 * the second one affects both (since the topic of that article is purely phonetic yet the full article is filled with phonology terms and discussion). My answers is "OK" while your answer is "OR". Once a questiones is asked it has to be discussed, and the asker doesn't own the question once it's in public discussion. This is putting words in my mouth as your interpretation of what I said is not the same as what I actually said. You should've asked for clarification first and then maybe ask me to make a separate thread here, or make it yourself.
 * So it's has nothing to do with "put words in my mouth" or something and I didn't mention you at all when tagging that article Yet you're admitting that the reason you tagged this article was me.
 * For rhotic vowel I believe if using phonology term on phonetics is OR then it should be moved to retroflex vowel or vowel coarticulated with retroflex approximant. You do realize that rhotic vowel is a redirect to this article, right? It's not its actual title.
 * The tone of this entire article is weird since apart from phonetic topic the entire article is filled with phonology discussion and more importantly the article title is named after phonology term. I'm not sure whether that's the case. In the case of vowels, rhotic or rhotacized seems to be a well-defined term describing a range of retroflex-like coarticulations. This is in contrast to the term rhotic consonant, which is purely phonological and phonetically meaningless. Sol505000 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment was copied from where I originally posted and "apical" was a typo". You started a fresh talk when the OR tag clearly directed people to the place where I replied your edit summary. I mean if you believed this rhotic should be discussed separately you should at least leave a message at the talk page where the message was originally posted or at least mention that you started a new discussion here in your edit summary, otherwise I wouldn't know that and can only reply you in the other talk.
 * This is what you said: I don't think we want WP:OR labels such as "rhotic approximant" or "non-rhotic approximant" in the article. These names make sense only when discussing the phonology of particular language(s)/dialect(s), not when discussing the sounds (phones) themselves. A "rhotic" is not a type of sound as it can be almost anything. You didn't say the combination of "rhotic" and "consonant" is not a type of sound. You said exactly rhotic is not a type of sound as it can be almost anything. So if you believed I put words in your mouth you should check if there's any inconsistency between what you said and what you meant to say, as your statement, per common understanding, would mean whether it's OK or it's OR to apply an ad hoc phonology term (rhotic) for phonetic purpose (my interpretation or "put words in your mouth"). That no longer that important now that you have (at least partially) clarified what you really meant to say.
 * Of course I do realize that rhotic vowel is a redirect to this article. It's not its actual title, but it's one of the main titles used on the first paragraph in a general way. If the article writes "Retroflex vowel is a type of sound commonly known as rhotic/R-colored vowel in English phonology and erhua/ㄦ-colored vowel in Mandarin phonology", and have both rhotic vowel and erhua vowel redirected here, I would have no problem. But that's not how this article goes, so the OR problem persists. 146.96.28.222 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Retroflex vowel" also doesn't seem to be a good name in that such a vowel doesn't have to be very retroflex. However, Sol505000's claim In the case of vowels, rhotic or rhotacized seems to be a well-defined term describing a range of retroflex-like coarticulations doesn't seem to stand because sources in the article seems to use the term "rhotic vowel" phonologically. "R-colored vowel" also is not too much better than rhotic because "r-colored" and "r-like" aren't semantically different enough. No terms seems to be completely without OR problem if we requires phonetic (as opposed to phonology) strictly, give this sound is an acoustic unbrella term allowing different kind of articulations (just like the rhotic alveolar consonant). 146.96.28.222 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag. You're wasting everyone's time by treating the talk pages as your personal blog without citing any sources nor bothering to check them yourself. Here are the sources for the names:, , , , , - and that's in addition to the sources found in the article. Sol505000 (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your mentioning of "Rhotacized vowel". It looks like the term "rhotacized" is a well-established term in phonetics. However, you failed to prove "rhotic vowel" to be a well-established term in phonetics, because your list of sources about "rhotic" are merely quoting a phonology concept in a phonetic paper. Such usage cannot be understood as a phonetic usage, so your removal of the original research template deserved to be reverted and still deserves to be reverted. 146.96.25.55 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the article to be moved to rhotacized vowel or vowel rhotacization. 146.96.24.211 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not hard to find examples of "rhotic" being used as a phonetic description for vowels. Most prominently, the official IPA chart has a diacritic whose function is to indicate "rhoticity", exemplified by being attached to vowels. Since the IPA's whole function is to represent phonetic, not phonological features, it seems clear that, at least in the opinion of the International Phonetic Association, "rhotic" is a phonetic feature that a vowel can have. AJD (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Now this is a English language problem, since I heard that most English is increasingly isolational and that its affixes have becoming not fully (except for few like 's and 'll which are fully derivational) grammatically derivational (and some even totally underivational). I guess when rhotic acquires a new meaning, it probably will automatically be a part of rhoticity (or does it?), but when rhoticity acquires a new phonetic meaning, does rhotic automatically acquires the corresponding meaning via back-formation? I think I'm probably quitting (leaving it to native speakers) because I am not a native speaker and cannot give advice to this language problem, but in my memory there was some pair (whith merely an almost fully derivational suffix difference) that look similar but have different meanings. If rhotic does have corresponding meaning in the community I would suggest to move this article to rhotic vowel. 146.96.28.10 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Term name
I would like to learn the origin of the term name. Why is it called "colored" when it has nothing to do with colors? Wolf O&#39;Donnel (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)