schwa or not

[engee30]

Is the sound [3:] a schwa as in 'surf' [s3:f]?

[Casiopea]

Here's something you'll like, The sounds of English and the International Phonetic Alphabet | Antimoon.com

Scroll down to the charts; look foryour symbol, you'll see turn and learn, and then click on either the American and British pronunication, or both.

All the best.

[Casiopea]

Additionally, it's an "r-colored" vowel, and it's schwa like (See note 2. in the same source above). And from Symbols for American English Vowel Sounds,

"R-colored" or rhoticized vowels (such as those in beard, heard, hard are hard to discriminate and are absent in "r-drop" or non-rhotic dialects such as those typical of the North American South and New England region, and Received Pronunciation in GB. In these latter dialects, the preceding vowel is usually lengthened and often glides toward the central schwa sound. IPA hangs a little "r-hook"diacritic off of the symbol for an r-colored vowel.

[engee30]

Thank you. That's what I needed to know. Once again, you've provided me with a good reference.

[Casiopea]

You're most welcome.

[snipper]

No they are two different phonemes.

[CHOMAT]

absolutly the schwa in the IP has nothing to do with the phonem in bird or in surf.

[Buddhaheart]

No, the sound [3:] is not strictly a schwa [c] as in [s3:f]. [3:]’s considered a lower-mid central vowel (same height as the [e] (Cardinal vowel #3) and []] (C.V. #6)) while schwa is a mid central vowel. In rhotacized NAE dialects, the right hook reversed epsilon [g] is used making 'surf' sound like [sg:f].

IPA considers [3] a variety of [c]. There’s no clear agreement among the various phoneticians (Jones, Gimson, Catford, Trager & etc.) whether the two are distinct phonemes. In terms of vowel quality, I believe they’re very similar.