a linking 'r' vs linking 'r'

[Alexey86]

Would you please help me understand the use of articles with r in the following passage from The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by R. Huddleston (I numbered all the uses of r in the passage):



I understand the green ones and don’t understand the red ones.
Why does the author vary the count and the non-count use of r?
(8) is part of a general statement. Why does it take the?

 

[jutfrank]

2, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 17 can all be explained in the same way: there's no article because these terms are being used as names: 'linking /r/'; 'post-vocalic /r/'; 'intrusive /r/'; etc.

8 is different: the reference is to a specific instance of the sound /r/. It's not a name here.

 

[GoodTaste]

The 5: The /r/ in pronunciations of [2i] in non-rhotic accents is called a linking /r/. Within a word, as in [ia], linking /r/ is obligatory;

Does "2i" refer to "ii a. saw-ing, thaw-ing"? I understand or guess it as when pronouncing "sawing", you voice it as "sawring" - that is, a linking /r/ is put there artificially.
Am I on the right track? Sorry I haven't had the grammar book at hand.

 

[5jj]

Does "2i" refer to "ii a. saw-ing, thaw-ing"?

No.

If there is no letter r in the spelling of a word, then then any /r/ pronounced is an intrusive /r/, not a linking /r/.

 

[GoodTaste]

No.

If there is no letter r in the spelling of a word, then then any /r/ pronounced is an intrusive /r/, not a linking /r/.

What does "2i" stand for? What does "ib" (in the phrase "the word sequence [ib]") stand for?

 

[5jj]

They are the numbers/letters of the four groups of words at the top.

 

[Alexey86]

2, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 17 can all be explained in the same way: there's no article because these terms are being used as names: 'linking /r/'; 'post-vocalic /r/'; 'intrusive /r/'; etc.

If that passage were a grammar test where I should put the right articles, I would never guess which modified instances should be names. Why does the author make these shifts from a common noun in (6) -> to a name in (7) -> to a common noun in (10-11) -> to a name in (12-13)? What's the logic or motivation behind that? Would you personally make the same shifts? I see that (6) and (10-11) are preceded by called. If that is the reason, would you explain it please?

8 is different: the reference is to a specific instance of the sound /r/. It's not a name here.

Within a word, as in [ia], linking /r/ is obligatory; in word boundary position, as in [ib], the /r/ is optional...

It's a general statement. We can drop out as in [ia]/as in [ib] without changing the meaning. Shouldn't linking /r/ and the /r/ have the same general reference? Or maybe the latter refers to the former.

 

[jutfrank]

Why does the author make these shifts from a common noun in (6) -> to a name in (7) -> to a common noun in (10-11) -> to a name in (12-13)? What's the logic or motivation behind that?

Because in (6) and (11) he's introducing these nouns for the first time.

Would you personally make the same shifts?

Very likely, yes.

I see that (6) and (10-11) are preceded by called. If that is the reason, would you explain it please?

We customarily use called when introducing the words we use to denote things (i.e., common nouns by which things are named).

Shouldn't linking /r/ and the /r/ have the same general reference? Or maybe the latter refers to the former.

Not exactly. The use of the in the /r/ is optional shows that the speaker is referring to this specific instance of use. When used without an article (what I've said is a name), the noun refers more generally to the general class, not to the specific instance.

 

[Alexey86]

Because in (6) and (11) he's introducing these nouns for the first time.
We customarily use called when introducing the words we use to denote things (i.e., common nouns by which things are named).

That’s clear. The question is, what motivates the author to make a shift from a common noun to a name? Why not just use the former all the time? And what allows us to use linking /r/ as a name, by the way? Have you ever seen or used the terms common noun, direct object or definite article as names? I haven't. (I can only think of titles or dictionary entries. Can we consider those terms names in such contexts?)

Not exactly. The use of the in the /r/ is optional shows that the speaker is referring to this specific instance of use.

To me, the /r/ sounds as strange or inconsistent as, for example the winters in In northern countries, such as Finland, winters are cold; in southern countries, such as Mexico, the winters are warm. (my example)