Check out this 2004 post on Language Log for a linguist’s dissection of nucular and its growing popularity.
Perhaps the key sentence:
As for me, yeah, “nucular” sounds wrong. But so what? I’ve never noticed that poor pronunciation or spelling are reliable indicators of intelligence. Like HPL, I just can’t bring myself to care, and believe that there are far more serious reasons to dislike Bush than his maybe-deliberate-maybe-not nonstandard pronunciation of nuclear.
Get a bigger & newer dictionary and you’ll find that you’re just plain wrong.
Personally, I putt the two pronunciations of nuclear in the category of free variation. That would be the same as the two pronunciations of either.
Actually, since I haven’t been golfing for four years and some odd months now, I put them in that categoryy.
It doesn’t bug me too terribly much (not like some other annoying ones like “ax” shudder), but I don’t get the “easier to pronounce” crew.
Mu klee ur requires a lot less lips/teeth/tongue movement than nu KU laar. You can practically say nu klee ur without moving your mouth (though I hope no one takes me up on it, too damn many people mumble as it is :D). Doesn’t seem so easy with nu ku lar, unless one slurs the “ku” part and it comes out more like “nuk’lar”.
It’s not easier to pronounce (though why people think “easier to pronounce” is an important issue here is confusing in and of itself.) The only people claiming it’s easier to pronounce are clueless and talking out of their asses about a subject they don’t understand.
Honestly, if you don’t trust my linguistic acumen, the article linked to above was by Geoffrey Nunberg (contributor at the awesome Language Log), an all-in-all extremely smart dude and linguistics prof at Stanford. The word “nuclear” was reanalyzed to match the common derivational ending ‘-ular’, as in ‘molecular’ and ‘muscular’. No one is claiming one is significantly easier to pronounce than the other, and anyone who claims the issue is caused by one being hard to pronounce doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Seriously, some of us actually know about and understand linguistics; despite our society’s constant refrain that every subject is a matter of opinion (Decide for yourself whether Darwinian evolution and global warming are real! What do those smarty-pants scientists know anyhow?) some of us actually do have specific knowledge in the field of linguistics, and are more capable of determining the likeliest origin of a particular usage.
I don’t think anyone here is under the impression that George Bush’s accent is real; I’ve seen enough claims that his pronunciation of the word “nuclear” varies to agree that it’s probably not his own usual usage. And sure 'nough, Bush puts on a down-home, aw shucks, folksy image that a lot of the more gullible members of the public obviously find very appealing.
But no one who knew what they were talking about would call Jimmy Carter uneducated, and he pronounced the word the same way. People made fun of his (real) Deep South accent, and he was to a greater or lesser extent saddled with an image (obviously a completely baseless one) of not being all that bright. Choosing to judge a speaker’s education or intelligence based on how they talk is essentially saying that people from certain places or certain backgrounds are stupid. It’s true that one particular dialect is heavily associated with academia, but it’s simply nonsense to claim that it follows that this dialect is inherently superior to any other. If you’d like to make snap judgments about people, you’re welcome to it. But regional accents or particular word pronunciations are an extremely deceptive way to go about it. After all, George W. Bush wasn’t any brighter when he had an obnoxious Yalie accent, either.
One aspect of linguistic competence is the ability to determine how to speak in a given situation. For instance, many if not most black people in the United States seamlessly switch between black English and standard English depending on whether their audience is mostly black or white. It only makes sense to use your speech to gain whatever advantage you can.
:rolleyes: Yes, I know. Back in your day, children knew their place. People had manners. Everyone was well-educated. Also, it didn’t get as cold in winter. The food was better. Doughnuts didn’t make you fat. You walked twenty miles to school, uphill both ways, and dagnabbit, you liked it!
I don’t think there’s any more of a non-argument than claiming that the world is so much worse than it used to be. Are you familiar with the term “nostalgia”? Are you unaware of the fact that people have been making exactly the same claims about them damn kids today since ancient Greece (and no doubt before, but those are the first such writings that we can attest)?
Of course the way you talk influences how others regard you. Talk about stating the obvious. That doesn’t mean that you’re not a moron if you go around making snap judgments about people based on how they pronounce the word “nuclear”. You’re right, though. It’s silly to work to convince people not to be prejudiced against the way others talk. Why, next we’ll start getting pissed when companies refuse to hire black people! What a ridiculous idea!
What profession? Some nuclear engineers, as has been noted, pronounce it “nucular”. If they don’t have a problem with it, why the hell would I care if your profession does or doesn’t?
(I’m guessing . . . short order cook! Am I right?)
nu·cle·ar (nōō’klē-ər, nyōō’-)
adj.[ol][li]*Biology *Of, relating to, or forming a nucleus: a nuclear membrane.[/li][li]*Physics *Of or relating to atomic nuclei: a nuclear chain reaction.[/li][li]Using or derived from the energy of atomic nuclei: nuclear power.[/li][li]Of, using, or possessing atomic or hydrogen bombs: nuclear war; nuclear nations.[/ol][/li]
[From nucleus.]
**Usage Note: The pronunciation (nōō’kyə-lər), which is generally considered incorrect, is an example of how a familiar phonological pattern can influence an unfamiliar one. The usual pronunciation of the final two syllables of this word is (-klē-ər), but this sequence of sounds is rare in English. Much more common is the similar sequence (-kyə-lər), which occurs in words like particular, circular, spectacular, and in many scientific words like molecular, ocular, and vascular.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Reddening mine. But can I get a hand for the damn coding? Sheesh.
TOM-AR-TOE, TOM-AY-TOE, POT-AY-TOE… 
That’s very nice. I don’t know what you expect this to demonstrate, though, except that you’ve found a dictionary that’s willing to suggest that “nucular” isn’t a prestigious pronunciation. Note the way they hedged their claim: they used the passive to signal the fact that they’re not making a claim either way. They’re certainly not strong supporters, based on this at least, of those wishing to cast judgment on the stigmatized pronunciation. Interesting that you chose the AHD, though - folks pushing prescriptive grammar generally get upset at what they perceive as the laxity of the AHD’s usage advice. Check out their Usage Note on “unique”, for instance, for their (logically impeccable) defense of “more unique”.
I’m guessing, though, that even if you’re willing to trust the dictionary when it backs you, as it (sort of) does here, you probably would join in with the wailing and gnashing of teeth that results whenever people defend sentence-initial “hopefully” and claim that the dictionary is wrong.
Incidentally, their claim (and I usually like the American Heritage Dictionary - in fact, that’s my main English dictionary. Sheesh.) that /kli @r/ is particularly rare is simply false - “likelier”, as I noted above, is not at all an uncommon word, and it doesn’t ever show the same reanalysis. If the word would be expected to reanalyze simply because it contained an uncommon sequence of sounds, it’s brethren would be in exactly the same circumstance and would be expected to show the same change. AHD’s analysis of this based on the false assumption that /kli @r/ is actually uncommon. It seems to presuppose that rare combinations of sounds naturally lead to subsequent phonetic changes - again, false (for instance, how many words besides “sphere” begin with the consonant sequence /sf/? That one is sort of hard to pronounce! But it doesn’t seem to be changing in any population I’m aware of.) And it doesn’t adequately explain the phenomenon, since a strictly phonetic argument ought to apply more or less equally to all words with that phonetic feature. Bah. Their usage panel gives excellent usage guidance, which is why I like the dictionary so much, but they should stay out of trying to explain linguistic issues.
Hmm. Does anyone say “nyu-kew-lus”?
“Kly” must not be that hard to pronounce then.
Wow. That all makes you look pretty silly. A lot of pretty acrobatic projection on me and my motivations, considering it was just a straight cut and past from about as innocuous a source as you’d come across. I have never seen anyone struggle so hard to pull an *ad hominem *out of thin air. (FWIW, I tend to prefer Webster’s, but ADH is in Firefox’s default dropdown search menu.)
Specifically, they’re making pronouncements about a phonological issue and, as you’ve stated, they don’t know what they’re discussing.
&
&
What you’re discussing in these three quotes is register (specifically, definition 9).
BTW, you’ve more than proved on these boards that you’re a competent linguist (interestingly enough, the 2nd definition is the one most non-linguists I’ve enountered seem to think is the only definition of that word).
Merriam Webster says I’m right. Please, show me a dictionary that provides the alternate pronunciation.
Can we talk about “joolery” now?
First off, I think Jimmy Carter’s pronunciation of words has just as much to do with a speech impediment as a regional accent. Again, I am not unfamiliar with things southern/rural/folksy. I grew up in Alabama and live in Georgia, and have many acquaintances from south Georgia, so I feel comfortable in making that statement. Old James had more than just a drawl; he talks like he has a golf ball in his cheek. Second, I am not proposing that people lose accents; I am saying that people must be aware that others will develop an impression of them by the way that they speak – substance and style.
Couldn’t agree more. Even said as much. And the reason why one might chose more refined speech for a given audience? So as not to create the appearance of ignorance. Look, I know folksy doesn’t mean stupid. But to ignore the fact that a great body of the population thinks that way is just plain naive. I’m not saying that I consciously choose to judge someone by the way that person speaks (although I am sure I do, and so do you, even if only subconsciously), I’m saying that a speaker must be aware that he or she will be judged by the way that he or she speaks. Defend nuklyular all you like, but increasing adoption of the pronunciation by part of the populous will not negate the prejudice of another – just as you consider the increasing approval you must also consider the increasing disapproval, or are descriptivists only interested in adding pronunciations?
Yeah dude, they’re just the same. Level of education/ability to come across as polished and race, they are fucking identical. Seriously though, do you want to take this analogy back? It’s really bad.
Dishwasher. Seriously though, I rethought that statement no sooner than I’d hit submit reply. In certain situations I face daily, it’s true, but it’s not true in every aspect of my job – in fact, sometimes it pays to country it up a little. It all goes back to knowing your audience.
One last time, let me repeat, I did not make the rule that the way someone speaks will create an impression of that speaker (sometimes negative) in the mind of the listener. It’s human nature. Despite the growing use of the mispronunciation of nuclear – I would wager that most literate people regard the proper pronunciation to be “nu klee ar;” therefore, in many instances the alternate pronunciation will create a negative impression – the fucking Bush camp relies on this to bifurcate American society into the lib’rul e-light and the rest of us honest 'mericans. Navel gaze all you want, but consider this, use of the pronunciation “nu klee ar” is not likely to draw a pit thread, in fact it will likely go unnoticed. The same cannot be said of the alternate pronunciation. If you were teaching your kid how to speak, and you didn’t want him to sound like a dumbass, how would you have him say the word?
No, there isn’t. Rearranging the sounds in a word is a very common phenomenon in languages, to the extent that there’s a proper term for it – metathesis. It’s been going on in English for millenia: “bird” was once “bridd”, “run” was once “irnan”, “wasp” was once “wæps”.
I predict that 500 years from now, “nucular” will be the accepted pronunciation. It’s anyone’s guess whether spelling will have caught up with it or not.
A few other examples: “curd” was “crud”, “third” was “thrydd”, “through” was “þurh”, “dirt” was “drit”, “fresh” was “fersc”, “cress” was “cærse”, “wren” was “werna”, “thrill” was “þyrlian”, “bristle” was “byrst”, “leprechaun” was “luchorpan”, “omelet” was “alemett”, “cokedrill” was from “crocodilus” (and then it was artificially Latinized back into “crocodile”), and on and on. This is a battle you’re not going to win.
okay - that’s just a really scary thought.
will “aks” become acceptable also? and other dialectical (is that a word?) pronunciations that have, in spite of efforts to the contrary, worked their way into the common lexicon?
In Old and Middle English, “acsian” and “ascian” were interchangeable. It was only happenstance that “ask” was chosen as the “correct” form, and not “aks”. “Aks” isn’t an innovation or a mispronunciation, but an archaic pronunciation that never went away in several dialects.
“Ax” for “ask” is interesting, since despite many people’s assumptions to the contrary, both forms are probably equally old. It’s known that Chaucer, for instance, used both interchangeably in his writing (this being a time when English was far less standardized than today.) Whether “ax” will remain stigmatized, disappear entirely, or perhaps take over is an interesting question; there’s no way to answer it, of course, but “ask” most likely doesn’t actually come from any nobler a pedigree than “ax”; as with so many items that evoke furor from the prescriptivists and mark a speaker as likely coming from a less educated background, the fact that one form is preferred and another isn’t is mostly a historical accident.
The specific phenomenon of metathesis, which is when sounds or syllables get shuffled around, is as yBeayf has pointed out a very significant contributor to the historical development of languages. But modern examples aren’t all that common, and many of those are heavily stigmatized. Someone has already mentioned “joolery”; I’m not certain, but I suspect that “Wenzday” showed the same phenomenon, and so thoroughly that in the United States it’s the only pronunciation of the word still in existence. “Comfortable” is probably another example of the same thing, the prevailing pronunciation being /kUmf tr bl/.
Of course, most of these don’t fit very easily into the rhythm of the old song, so that may slow their acceptance. "You say joolery, I say jewelry. You say comfterble, I say comfortable. Let’s call the whole thing off . . . "