1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Teacher Q&A will be closing soon.

    If you have any information that you would like to keep or refer to in the future please can you copy and paste the information to a format suitable for you to save or take screen shots of the questions and responses you are interested in.

    Don’t forget you can still use the rest of the forums on theTes Community to post questions and get the advice, help and support you require from your peers for all your teaching needs.

    Dismiss Notice

Words ending er, ir, ar, or, ur, our

Discussion in 'Primary' started by mashabell, Jun 10, 2011.

  1. In English there is a huge difference between stressed syllables which are pronounced clearly, and of which most words have jus one, and unstressed ones, or schwa, which occur mainly in endings and nobody pronounces clearly,
    ie usher, cellular, advisor.
    'Nadir, demur, voeyer, velour' all have stupid spellings as well, but the endings are stressed and can be clearly heard: nadeer, demer, voiyer, veloor'.
    As last syllable stress like that is fairly rare in English, it would be really good to double the final consonants in those words, even with the foreign spellings:
    nadirr, demurr, voeyerr, velourr, ocurr, referr...
    Consonant doubling would serve a useful function there, unlike those in
    'afford, accommodation, occur, apply....' which are totally pointless.
  2. So you don't think all those words should end in -er like the OP? The new rules are not as obvious as I was expecting.
  3. So you agree the final syllables, when spoken, do not sound identical?
  4. When unstressed, the endings -er, -or, -our, -ar, -re,
    all have a fudged, vague, barely audible pronuncition and sound similar enough to get by perfectly well with just the -er spelling (after, acter, oder, anguler, center).
    But we all exaggerate their pronunciation when trying to learn to spell them (using posh pronunciation as someone called it) and so many people end up thinking that they are somehow really different. In normal speech they all sound the same. So why not spell them same and save a lot of pointless time-wasting?
    The different spellings for a final, unstressed /-er/ sound are nothing but a totally useless memorisation hassle.
  5. cinnamonsquare

    cinnamonsquare Occasional commenter

    If you genuinely are Valerie Yule, I would have hoped for a little more thought and intelligence put into a post. Why have you completely disregarded pronunciation of these endings?
  6. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Where I live we say ush er, sell yoo lar. and ad vies or not a schwa to be heard
  7. It is quite wrong to say that these words all soudns the same. Some of
    them are fairly similar (which is not the same as "the same")and some
    most definitely do not.

    There are apparently quite a few users jumping onto this simplified spelling hobby horse.
  8. It's quire worrying really. The whole notion is rubbish. It has no academic basis and is all based on a vanity published book written by someone wit English as a second language and an obsession.
  9. Why not leave velour and voyeur in their original French spelling, it shows the origins of the words and the original pronunciation better than imposing a made-up, rigid, dry and boring set of rules. Such a system would take away the richness and diversity of our language, derived from so many sources, and turn it into a shallow, robotic, mechanical one. Language is creative, artistic, always evolving. It is not designed or regulated by someone in a government office, thank God.

Share This Page