I Pit "Nukuler"

[gooftroopag]

@whole bean

Because we’re not talking about you, we’re talking about George W. Bush and his decision (yes decision) to employ folksy rhetoric and pronunciation. With all due respect, I don’t care how you talk or who you talk to, and your little anecdote does nothing to convince me that Bush doesn’t affect his speech when he deems so fit.

I realize you’re not talking about me, but if it’s something I have a problem with (being from Texas) I can definitely understand how someone else from the state might have a similar problem.

What is your theory based on? Have you ever heard him speak without the accent?

If it’s post being made fun of for saying nukular, based on my experience its probably because he struggles to remember which way to say it to not be harassed. Futher imho, if he hasn’t always had the accent, I wouldn’t be surprised if he acquired it from his wife. My sister acquired a thick Texas accent after marrying a man that had a thick accent. She picked up a lot of his -isms, stuff she would have never said before.

[whole_bean]

@gooftroopag

I realize you’re not talking about me, but if it’s something I have a problem with (being from Texas) I can definitely understand how someone else from the state might have a similar problem.

What is your theory based on? Have you ever heard him speak without the accent?

If it’s post being made fun of for saying nukular, based on my experience its probably because he struggles to remember which way to say it to not be harassed. Futher imho, if he hasn’t always had the accent, I wouldn’t be surprised if he acquired it from his wife. My sister acquired a thick Texas accent after marrying a man that had a thick accent. She picked up a lot of his -isms, stuff she would have never said before.

Although Bush grew up in Texas (when he wasn’t in boarding school in Massachusetts), he certainly didn’t grow up with Texas-accented parents. I think he’s taken on the accent and various pronunciations (there is nothing Texas-centric about “nukyular,” nor do all Texans say it this way – my mother, who is from Texas in the same sense Bush is, doesn’t; my friends from UT, Baylor and Dallas don’t). My conclusion is as much a hunch as anything, although I have read (in TNR, if I recall correctly) about the thickening of Bush’s accent in the governor years. My point to you, Monty and LHOD is simply that these theories on linguistics do not negate, as Monty stated, the possibility that Bush affects his speech.

Hell, I am from South Alabama (Lower Alabama, L.A., as the locals call it) and when I get drunk I sound like Jerry Reed circa Smokey and the Bandit, whereas sober, my accent is slightly southern (living in Atlanta makes it less so by the day), so I understand the subconscious aspect to speech, but just because something can be explained as a subconscious reaction doesn’t always mean it is.

If living in Atlanta can squeeze the Jerry Reed out of me, wouldn’t Yale and DC squeeze the Hos out of Bush – 'less he tried real hard not to let it go (TRIED)? It’s not an unreasonable conclusion.

[Monty]

So, it’s a bad thing to apply knowledge of linguistics to a linguistic issue but it’s a good thing to apply one’s prejudices to it. Who knew?

Yes, it’s certainlly" taking longer than we though."

[Monty]

Dratted misspellings! Corrected version of post #203:

So, it’s a bad thing to apply knowledge of linguistics to a linguistic issue but it’s a good thing to apply one’s prejudices to it. Who knew?

Yes, it’s certainly “taking longer than we thought.”

[Zoe]

If living in Atlanta can squeeze the Jerry Reed out of me, wouldn’t Yale and DC squeeze the Hos out of Bush – 'less he tried real hard not to let it go (TRIED)? It’s not an unreasonable conclusion.

Vanderbilt had a lot of students from New England and New York who didn’t appear to have their dialects “squeezed” out of them when they came South.

People don’t automatically shift dialects when moving from one part of the country to another.

Studies have shown long ago that variables such as gender and regional origin can make a difference.

I’ve noticed too that in more recent years in the entertainment industry, more and more Southerners are choosing to retain their Southern or country accents. (Holly Hunter, Billy Bob Thornton) Compare that speech with Carolina’s Ava Gardner.

Maybe it’s a matter of becoming enlightened about how sounding Southern is not the equivalent of being stupid. The more people who refuse to buy into that concept, the faster the stereotype will be put to rest.

Dammit, I can arrive at a conclusion about someone’s motive for speaking a certain way without an advanced degree in linguistics.

Certainly. We can all arrive at conclusions about Bush’s motives. That’s easy. We just speculate and either side can be wrong. No here is an authority on Bush’s motives. That’s not what you were being criticized for. My guess is that you were being critized for basing your conclusions on non-factual information or for drawing false conclusions about factual information. That’s different.

It’s been said here often that you have a right to your own opinions, but you don’t have a right to your own facts.

For you to dismiss my conclusion based solely on your knowledge of LINGUISTICS wreaks of the ivory tower know-it-all-ness that gives smart folks a bad name.

At SDMB, smart folks don’t have a bad name.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Monty

It is a standard pronunciation in certain circles.

Ok then, I’ll take you at your word. That pronunciation was unfamiliar to me when I heard W first say it (though it only caused confusion for a fraction of a second. Literally).

I think you’re missing something about the language. Since you and your brother were using thesaurasis to mean a particular thing and you both knew to what thing you were referring, then it’s no longer a mispronunciation between the two of you. It’s your particular register. Code switching was discussed earlier in this thread. You might check those posts again.

With all due respect, I think you’re applying an inappropriate conceptual framework here.

“Thesaurasis” (my brothers mispronunciation) and “hoobris” (mine) are examples of idiosyncratic nonstandard pronunciations. More narrowly, they are errors, not slang, not secret codes. We know that they’re errors, because the speaker will switch to another pronunciation, once it is pointed out to him.

In the informal terminology of Stanford linguist Geoff Nunberg, “hoobris” is a typo, not a thinko. ( http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/nucular.html )

If I am correct, Monty believes that nukular is a thinko. I’m inclined to believe him. I’m just saying that it is fair and appropriate to characterize typos in pronunciation as “mispronunciation”, “errors” or “incorrect”.

A conceptual framework that does not allow for mispronunciation --as defined and believed by the very speakers being studied-- is incomplete.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@DrDeth

Yes, they say “generally considered incorrect”. Websters Unabridged says something like “considered incorrect by many”. And, they are both correct, and so - you are wrong. Any decent Unabridged Dictionary will agree that “nukular” is “considered incorrect” by quite a large number of the populace- because- it is CONSIDERED INCORRECT by quite a few, as evidenced by this thread here. But they don’t say that that usage IS incorrect. All they are saying is that quite a few Americans “consider” that pronunciation “incorrect”- which they do.

However- as Cecil has said “we don’t vote on the facts”.

The “facts is” that a significant minority use the alternate pronunciation, thus that usage is legit.

Paragraphs added for emphasis.

Re: Last sentence. No. You presented a fact (here, a statement where there’s shared agreement) followed by an opinion dressed as a definition.

Other definitions are possible. As I claimed above, a subpopulation may use a certain term in a certain way that they believe to be improper. Just because a usage is observed does not make it “legit”, unless the speakers believe it to be legit.

Of course other analytical constructs are possible. I’m just saying that they are a little odd.

Actually though, I don’t consider myself a prescriptivist, probably for selfish reasons: my language is too prone to error compare favorably with a rigid (and yes, arbitrary) set of rules.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Measure for Measure

I’m just saying that it is fair and appropriate to characterize typos in pronunciation as “mispronunciation”, “errors” or “incorrect”.

Sorry. I’m claiming more than that.

Somebody may use a phrase or word in a way that they believe is incorrect (but not slang), with intention. It would be fair to characterize such usage as “incorrect but not erroneous”.

My tentative conclusion is that nukular does not fall in this category.

I recognize that Mr Dubious may be flexing his eyebrows now.

[Monty]

@Measure for Measure

“Thesaurasis” (my brothers mispronunciation) and “hoobris” (mine) are examples of idiosyncratic nonstandard pronunciations. More narrowly, they are errors, not slang, not secret codes. We know that they’re errors, because the speaker will switch to another pronunciation, once it is pointed out to him.

What I said was that in one particular situation (you and your brother joking around with the language just between the two of you), you and your brother used a particular pronunciation of the word.

In the informal terminology of Stanford linguist Geoff Nunberg, “hoobris” is a typo, not a thinko. ( http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/nucular.html )

If I am correct, Monty believes that nukular is a thinko. I’m inclined to believe him. I’m just saying that it is fair and appropriate to characterize typos in pronunciation as “mispronunciation”, “errors” or “incorrect”.

Honestly, I wouldn’t call it a thinko, except for perhaps the first person to have used it. I’d say that’s the way the person learned it. But then that’s just me.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Whole Bean, there may have been lamer attempts at humorous insults in the history of man. Don’t mean I’ve seen them.

When you’re reduced to insulting people for being smart, maybe you’re on the wrong side of the argument.

Daniel

[Excalibre]

@whole bean

For you to dismiss my conclusion based solely on your knowledge of LINGUISTICS wreaks of the ivory tower know-it-all-ness that gives smart folks a bad name. Dammit, I can arrive at a conclusion about someone’s motive for speaking a certain way without an advanced degree in linguistics (God forbid you guys stop studying that stuff, I’m sure commerce would screech to a halt). Just because something CAN be explained one way does not mean that is the explanation. For you to smugly and assertively say that your discussion of linguistics has foreclosed any debate (and the room for any opinion) on W’s motivation for talking like a rube is pure hubris.

You know, I defended you earlier in this thread because I thought you had been conducting yourself quite well. But at this point, you can fuck right off. Academia and linguistics in particular is probably my future; it’s one of the things I’m most interested in. I don’t particularly care whether our economy is based upon the study of linguistics or not - I don’t remember when it was decided that economic value was the only value something had. I think that certain things - art and science - are inherently worth studying because they’re an essential aspect of what makes us human. Aside from their practical value - and of course any area of research has some practical value - studying such things is invaluable for human society.

You can take the anti-intellectual attitude you demonstrate in this quote and go join George W. Bush, because you probably share a whole lot of the same feelings towards us ivory tower intellectual types.

Oh, and about whether you get to have an opinion on something? You’re right; George Bush’s accent is affected, or at very least deliberately acquired. That’s no secret; one only need here recordings of him from before his tenure as Texas’ governor, and it’s not that hard to find them. If Monty is arguing against that, it’s because he’s a Republican, sad to say, not because he’s a linguist. But if you’re trying to suggest that the opinion of a layperson in any field, linguistics or not, is as relevant as the opinion of an expert, that’s obvious bullshit. Linguistics is an area in which many people feel some need to offer up opinions because apparently the fact that we all speak languages makes a lot of people think they’re experts. Well, we all do all sorts of wacky biology all day long just to keep our bodies working, but it doesn’t mean we’re all biologists. Similarly, if you are under the impression that this area of science is just a matter of opinion, you’re just showing your ignorance, since you are so vastly ignorant that you aren’t even aware of how much knowledge there is beyond what you know.

But don’t worry. I’ll call you up next time I wanna have a nice long talk about X-Bar theory. I love hearing your opinions.

@Measure for Measure

If I am correct, Monty believes that nukular is a thinko. I’m inclined to believe him. I’m just saying that it is fair and appropriate to characterize typos in pronunciation as “mispronunciation”, “errors” or “incorrect”.

A conceptual framework that does not allow for mispronunciation --as defined and believed by the very speakers being studied-- is incomplete.

I don’t quite remember Geoff Nunberg’s breakdown of “typos” and “thinkos”, although I know I’ve read it in language log. Certainly people can make errors. Being unfamiliar with the pronunciation of a difficult word is an error. If I pull out a plate of “horse doovers”, and everyone at the party laughs at me, well, I’m going to hide Ex-Lax in the canapés to get even with those jerks, but it doesn’t change the fact that the pronunciation of “hors d’oeuvres” is /or d@rv/ (in English, that is.) An individual, idiosyncratic pronunciation is an error. “Thesaurusis”, if it’s a code shared by two people, doesn’t really seem like an “error” to me, but if you examine it in the context of the wider English language, it certainly is. I’d call it your own shared dialect, though, if you’re using the word on purpose. (After all, no two people speak exactly the same way; we all have our own personal dialect, called an “idiolect.”)

People do make grammatical errors, after all. Some of the best are in writing, where we tend to use longer sentences and occasionally to omit parts of them, or screw up agreement. It’s not as though those things aren’t errors - they are. But a usage used by a community, one that is stable and exists in a large group of people, one that they deliberately use, at least amongst themselves, is not an error. That’s a different thing.

[Monty]

@whole bean

Monty LHOD , knock me with your little jabs all you want. I’ve kept it clean till challenged in this thread

I disagree with that. You specifically lumped military brass in with anti-intellectual. That alone shows you really aren’t too fond of facts.

and agreed with your underlying assertion (that, when it comes to pronunciation, there really can never be a correct and an incorrect, giving the tendency for such things to evolve, mutate, bastardize, whatever),

Actually, it’s not an underlying assertion. It’s right there in the open.

but now we’re talking about human nature, discerning motives, taking a totality of the circumstances in any given situation and arriving at a conclusion.

There’s no we there, quimo sabe. Another way of saying what you just did is “pulling it out of one’s rear.”

I have taken what I know about Bush as young man, businessman, and politician and what I know about those who he has surrounded himself with in his political life and arrived at the conclusion, reached by many others, that he does the opposite of putting on airs – he puts on this down home act – and part of that act involves the pronunciation of the word we’ve been discussing.

And yet another way of saying it is “guessing.”

For you to dismiss my conclusion based solely on your knowledge of LINGUISTICS wreaks of the ivory tower know-it-all-ness that gives smart folks a bad name.

You don’t seriously think that’s an intelligent comment, do you?

Dammit, I can arrive at a conclusion about someone’s motive for speaking a certain way without an advanced degree in linguistics (God forbid you guys stop studying that stuff, I’m sure commerce would screech to a halt).

a) Anyone can form an opinion. A respectable opinion, on the other hand, is formed by one examining the facts.

b) Linguistics actually is a paying profession. Apparently, it also has a bit of input into international commerce on occasion.

Just because something CAN be explained one way does not mean that is the explanation.

Just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean it smells any different than a sphincter.

For you to smugly and assertively say that your discussion of linguistics has foreclosed any debate (and the room for any opinion) on W’s motivation for talking like a rube is pure hubris.

Really? Care to enlighten us with what actual facts brought you to this inane opinion? Care to enlighten us with an actual fact that indicates using that particular pronunciation is a “rube’s” way of saying it but not also a “non-rube’s” way of saying it?

[Monty]

@Excalibre

You’re right; George Bush’s accent is affected, or at very least deliberately acquired. That’s no secret; one only need here recordings of him from before his tenure as Texas’ governor, and it’s not that hard to find them.

Some people pick up the local dialect more quickly than others. I personally have no idea what the President’s learning curve on that is. Honestly, I don’t care. After all, there’s nothing wrong, imho, with the man sounding like other people in his home base. BTW, contrary to certain individuals’ opinions, the man’s home base is Texas and he is Texan. (Even Hank Hill is Texan!)

If Monty is arguing against that, it’s because he’s a Republican, sad to say, not because he’s a linguist.

See above about if I’m arguing against it. I’m kind of “on the way out the door Republican” at the moment. I’m not very happy with some of the stuff the Republican Party is doing; however, I’m not at all impressed by the Democratic Party.

But if you’re trying to suggest that the opinion of a layperson in any field, linguistics or not, is as relevant as the opinion of an expert, that’s obvious bullshit.

Too true!

[Zoe]

whole bean: …he does the opposite of putting on airs – he puts on this down home act – and part of that act involves the pronunciation of the word we’ve been discussing.

To “put on airs” means to adopt an artificial or affected manner. So if Bush is being pretentious in his “down home act,” he is still putting on airs.

I may very well be mistaken about you, but do you see the South as culturally inferior? One reason that I ask is that my mother-in-law had the most beautiful “plantation dialect.” She was also from Southern Alabama. She was well-educated and it is difficult to imagine that anyone who heard her speak would have doubted it.

[Excalibre]

@Zoe

To “put on airs” means to adopt an artificial or affected manner. So if Bush is being pretentious in his “down home act,” he is still putting on airs.

I may very well be mistaken about you, but do you see the South as culturally inferior? One reason that I ask is that my mother-in-law had the most beautiful “plantation dialect.” She was also from Southern Alabama. She was well-educated and it is difficult to imagine that anyone who heard her speak would have doubted it.

He’s southern; he’s mentioned that.

Personally, I think a lot of southern accents (though there’s obviously lots of variation) are extremely beautiful. I’ve heard of people picking up southern accents deliberately because they seem warmer and more friendly; I particularly remember an NPR interview with a man originally from California. He had a business cleaning up after crimes and suicides, and he picked up a southern accent just because his clients seemed to find it more comfortable.

[Monty]

@Excalibre

He’s southern; he’s mentioned that.

I’ve encountered more than a few individuals from the South who think that the South is culturally inferior. Note: that’s just my personal experience.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Monty

Some people pick up the local dialect more quickly than others.

Heh. I had a good friend in high school who somehow went through 3 accents within a year (near-British, near-Yankee and near-Southern (N Carolinian)). He wasn’t code switching - he couldn’t go back and forth on command. He just seemed to absorb accents over a 3 month period or so.

W
Anyway, if my political opponents focused on my mispronunciation, I’d consider it a precious gift. Such barbs neither threaten one’s base nor swing any voters. Oh, to be an underestimated politician!

Excalibur:
------ But a usage used by a community, one that is stable and exists in a large group of people, one that they deliberately use, at least amongst themselves, is not an error. That’s a different thing.

Yeah, I agree, given all those factors. (BTW, I was also in vigorous agreement regarding your roadie example.)

Just to pick nits:
------ An individual, idiosyncratic pronunciation is an error. “Thesaurasis”, if it’s a code shared by two people, doesn’t really seem like an “error” to me…

Ok, but it wasn’t really a code, or even a family joke. It was a mental block: my brother would drop it the instant he spotted the word on the book. (Similarly, I now pronounce hubris as “hyubris”, when I remember to).

There’s another idea that I’ve wanted to jam into this conversation, but haven’t had the opportunity.

Successful civilizations are open ones. Those that exclude foreign ideas and technologies, those whose elite choose to circle their wagons, fare poorly. Pre-industrial China had trading ships in the Indian Ocean and even an explorer-general named Cheng-ho. Then, in 1433 the Emperor banned ocean voyage, dismantled all ocean ships and stopped his subjects from traveling to foreign lands. So close: they could have discovered Europe and the Americas!

Getting back to the OP, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that excessive snobbery and attention to arbitrary convention is a recipe for national decline. It is, however, a trait that discourages growth, imagination and innovation.

[whole_bean]

Monty, LHOD, Excalibre,
I apologize for being rude, sincerely. It was a long day yesterday, and I was frustrated. That’s not an excuse, simply an explanation. I should not have posted in that frame of mind. You’ve been accommodating of my ignorance in this thread.

To further explain, I was not attempting to subordinate linguistics or any other academic pursuit – I was raised by a professor, were it not for academic pursuits, I would have starved. I was attempting to fight back in defending a conclusion that is arrived at with knowledge of things other than linguistics. Yet I felt like, despite reasoned argument taking into account facts regarding things other than linguistics (like say, someone’s parent’s accent, where someone went to high school and college, that someone is a politician and might, just might, “try” to fit in with his base), I was having my lack of qualifications as a linguist tossed in my face and Monty had hoisted his qualifications so high that any opinion of his on matters even tangentially involving language was superior to mine. I am sure my impression was not 100% on par with reality. I apologize for being defensive.

Excalibre, you agree with my conclusion, but according to Monty it has been disproved (any debate foreclosed) by the arguments advanced in this thread. In fact, according to Monty, our (yours and mine) shared conclusion regarding Bush’s affected speech, smells like a sphincter (esophageal? rectal?).

This is all I’ve been getting at, as stated by you, Excalibre –

“You’re right; George Bush’s accent is affected, or at very least deliberately acquired. That’s no secret; one only need here recordings of him from before his tenure as Texas’ governor, and it’s not that hard to find them. If Monty is arguing against that, it’s because he’s a Republican*, sad to say, not because he’s a linguist.”

Zoe, No, I don’t think the South is culturally, inferior. Yes I am aware others do.

LHOD, I thought it was funny. Still I am sorry. As a lurker, I always found your posts to be intelligent and insightful. I am sorry I’ve found myself on the wrong side of you.

*I had no idea of anyone’s political affiliations. I am not, as a rule, anti-intellectual, but I have encountered intellectuals who transfer their expertise in one field to any area tangentially related to that field. I am not a Republican. I am a registered Democrat.

[Monty]

I will thank you to withdraw the lies you just made about me in post #218.

[Excalibre]

@"Hate Is All You Need" by the Delgadoes

Hate is in the air
Come on people feel it like you just don’t care
Everlasting hate
Feel it in the people where it’s warm and great
Come on hate yourself
Everyone here does so just enjoy yourself
Hate is everywhere,
Look inside your heart and you will find it there
You ask me what I mean
Hate is all I mean

Let’s sit here and try to hate on each other some more, okay? Because nucular threads aren’t contentious enough - it’s important that we build extra hatred here.