The presence of a consonant after the r in “beard” does not make the r any less consonantal. Words like “mast” and “mats” have two consonants at the end of a syllable and both are still fully consonantal.
Merriam-Webster gives \ˈbird\, Cambridge gives /bɪərd/, and Wiktionary gives /bɪɹd/. Unfortunately Oxford requires a subscription, but all of the others seem to agree.
Okay, I was going with Google define with gives /bɪəd/. It seems like the pronunciation various significantly between different English dialects.
If you listen to the Merriam-Webster audio file then there an /r/ sound. But if you listen to the audio file on Google define there’s only the schwa.
Unfortunately Oxford requires a subscription, but all of the others seem to agree.
Given that all three give different definition of how the word is supposed to be pronounced, “agree”is a bit strong. Even if we only look at the “r” Wiktionary suggests an alveolar approximant for US English suggests that optional in UK English. On the other hand while the British dictionary Merriam-Webster suggest an alveolar trill and Cambridge suggest also a alveolar trill for US English.
That means whether not there is a consonant behind the “r” in beard and what consonant that might be depends on the dialect that you speak.
You can have multiple consonants in a row on the same part of a syllable, but it’s restricted.
Most of them seem to have the same place of articulation. For example, n and t are alveolar. m and p are bilabial. Thus, ant and amp are allowed, but anp and amt are not.
s and z don’t seem to have to follow alveolar consonants, but s, which is voiced, must follow a voiced consonant, and z, which is unvoiced, must follow a voiced consonant. I also can’t help but suspect this has to do with the fact that in English, you make words plural by adding an s or z at the end. There might be a vowel placed before it, like in bridges, but it might have caused us to get better at sticking those letters directly after consonants. Can someone who speaks a language that doesn’t do that comment on this?
It’s hard to stick a bunch of consonants together, so you’re only allowed to if there’s extenuating circumstances. By contrast, vowels are easy. r is easy, so it’s a vowel.
“Amt” is a word in German. It is pronounced exactly as it looks, plus a glottal stop at the start.
Surprising. It’s not that hard to say “amt”, but it’s not any easier than just “mt”. The syllable has a vowel in it, but
I don’t know if that’s just an odd word, or if Germany has different rules. For all I know, they frequently have syllables without vowels. I would expect them to follow the same rules, since English is a Germanic language, but I guess getting rid of almost all of their words would lead to getting rid of almost all of their rules about what words are possible.
Where are you getting these rules?
They’re rules that I noticed English tends to follow, and the rules seem to make words easier to pronounce.
They’re rules that I noticed English tends to follow
It only tends to follow them. Exceptions abound; that is not a problem for the exceptions, but for the rules. An exception is not something that fails to obey the rule, it is something the rule failed to explain.
and the rules seem to make words easier to pronounce.
I think that not all, but a lot of the causality is the other way around: whatever your native language does is easier for you.
The presence of a consonant after the r in “beard” does not make the r any less consonantal. Words like “mast” and “mats” have two consonants at the end of a syllable and both are still fully consonantal.
The IPA of beard is: “bɪəd” b and d are consonants but the “r” belongs to “ə” which is a vowel.
Merriam-Webster gives \ˈbird\, Cambridge gives /bɪərd/, and Wiktionary gives /bɪɹd/. Unfortunately Oxford requires a subscription, but all of the others seem to agree.
Okay, I was going with Google define with gives /bɪəd/. It seems like the pronunciation various significantly between different English dialects.
If you listen to the Merriam-Webster audio file then there an /r/ sound. But if you listen to the audio file on Google define there’s only the schwa.
Given that all three give different definition of how the word is supposed to be pronounced, “agree”is a bit strong. Even if we only look at the “r” Wiktionary suggests an alveolar approximant for US English suggests that optional in UK English. On the other hand while the British dictionary Merriam-Webster suggest an alveolar trill and Cambridge suggest also a alveolar trill for US English.
That means whether not there is a consonant behind the “r” in beard and what consonant that might be depends on the dialect that you speak.
You can have multiple consonants in a row on the same part of a syllable, but it’s restricted.
Most of them seem to have the same place of articulation. For example, n and t are alveolar. m and p are bilabial. Thus, ant and amp are allowed, but anp and amt are not.
s and z don’t seem to have to follow alveolar consonants, but s, which is voiced, must follow a voiced consonant, and z, which is unvoiced, must follow a voiced consonant. I also can’t help but suspect this has to do with the fact that in English, you make words plural by adding an s or z at the end. There might be a vowel placed before it, like in bridges, but it might have caused us to get better at sticking those letters directly after consonants. Can someone who speaks a language that doesn’t do that comment on this?
It’s hard to stick a bunch of consonants together, so you’re only allowed to if there’s extenuating circumstances. By contrast, vowels are easy. r is easy, so it’s a vowel.
“Amt” is a word in German. It is pronounced exactly as it looks, plus a glottal stop at the start.
Where are you getting these rules?
Surprising. It’s not that hard to say “amt”, but it’s not any easier than just “mt”. The syllable has a vowel in it, but
I don’t know if that’s just an odd word, or if Germany has different rules. For all I know, they frequently have syllables without vowels. I would expect them to follow the same rules, since English is a Germanic language, but I guess getting rid of almost all of their words would lead to getting rid of almost all of their rules about what words are possible.
They’re rules that I noticed English tends to follow, and the rules seem to make words easier to pronounce.
It only tends to follow them. Exceptions abound; that is not a problem for the exceptions, but for the rules. An exception is not something that fails to obey the rule, it is something the rule failed to explain.
I think that not all, but a lot of the causality is the other way around: whatever your native language does is easier for you.