I’ve now read this entire thread, and have understood the gracious points as to the propriety of inclusiveness in varying pronounciation. Lots of thoughtful posts here.
I have not seen this point brought up, though, and it’s what bugs me most about GW Bush’s pronounciation of nuclear. The issues of nuclear power and nuclear arms are extremely important, both for the US internally, and our image and dealing with the rest of the world. We are the keepers of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and that’s an important symbol to other countries. If the Chief Executive of that arsenal can’t even pronounce it correctly, what kind of serious responsibility does that convey to the rest of the world? The President speaks for my country to the world, and I’d hope he’d care enough to be somewhat polished about it.
Carter’s accent was a soft Southern one, and his “nukleah” was from the back of the throat, whereas Bush’s is with a hard U, seeming to me to be more put-on, and not really in a cadence with the rest of his speech patterns.
As this thread and others have exhaustively demonstrated, he does pronounce it correctly. Therefore it conveys nothing untoward to the rest of the world.
I see what y’all say, but it still doesn’t seem right to my mind. I would like to hear from English speakers in other countries as to how this sounds to them. If it does have an effect on how we are viewed with a POTUS who pronounces that word that way, it matters much in the course of how the US is percieved.
I could well be wrong, but am curious if I might be wondering in the right direction.
Haven’t you found it fascinating how going to broadcast school and/or becoming wealthy can seem to change one’s “bad breeding” in the eyes of the ignorant?
Bless your heart, wealth and breeding are separate issues. All well-bred Southerners know that.
Wealth, in the South, is mostly about the accumulation of riches for the purpose of gaining political power.
Do you really think that someone who speaks, say, Mandarin, cares how someone pronounces “nuclear”? Or is even aware that there’s two different ways to say it?
I think it illustrates the difference between reading and understanding. A lot of people cling very tightly to prescriptive rules that they were taught; “It’s not proper English” is a sufficient argument to people who haven’t considered the matter thoroughly.
I’m mostly not discussing this issue from a context of fluffy-bunny “let’s accept other people’s differences!” To me, having learned about enough of the interesting varieties of English in existence and the origins of many nonstandard forms, I recognize that the notion of “correct English” is simply nonsensical, and from a strictly logical perspective, no empirical justification can be made for most claims about “proper English”. I’m coming at this, then, from a straightforwardly logical standpoint: it simply isn’t a meaningful statement to say that a nonstandard form is “incorrect”. To you or me, Monty, as linguists (since you’ve placed me in that category before, I’ll go with it :)) we can see that it’s simply not a logically consistent statement to call something “bad English”.
But if you’ve had the belief drilled into your head all your life that some forms are just incorrect, it’s hard to let go of them even when someone confronts you with evidence that “incorrect” is not a meaningful term in this circumstance. elelle, God love her, simply hasn’t internalized that message.
This goes back to my beliefs about how English is badly taught in schools, and how everyone should have a basic linguistics class in high school.
I have to admit, I am guilty of this prejudice, tho internally only (I never behave prejudicially). I was raised on 60’s TV where the Beverly Hillbillies, Petticoat Junction, and Green Acres were the primary example of rural folk. I have since meet many many intelligent people who have decidedly very rural accents and it still (to my shame) surprises me that they are indeed very bright. Conversely, (or rather likewise) when I hear someone with a “cultured” accent reveal themselves to be on the left side of the bellcurve, it too is a shock. Keifer’s character is supposed to be highly intelligent. A highly intelligent person would never pronounce words in other than the “oxford/merriamwebster” way. Thats the crux of my beef.
Thanks, welcome to the category of person incapable of understanding that my “bad breeding” post concerned the prejudices of others not myself – it was really directed more at prejudices against southerners/rural folk held by those outside the south/country. I like the “bless your heart” bit, too; been reading a lot of Sampiro, I see – he’s a great storyteller. I would never consider myself a well-bred southerner. I am from “poor stock,” so to speak, and therefore, very aware of prejudices, in the south and outside the south, against my ilk. Bless your heart, indeed.
Monty, Excalibre, not to beat a dead-horse, I understand your collective disdain for the label “incorrect pronunciation,” but would you at least concede that “nu kyu lar” is a disfavored pronunciation in certain circles – even if those circles are comprised of snooty, good for nothing prescriptivist nazis?
I haven’t argued that it’s not. I certainly tailor my speech to the audience I’m speaking to; nevertheless, I like to do my bit to counter irrational prejudices like that one when I can. It’s not realistic to pretend that this prejudice doesn’t exist - but that doesn’t mean I can’t encourage people to lose it.
Oxford gives both pronunciations, and so does Merriam Webster. It seem like what you are saying is “if dudes don’t pronounce words the same way I do, they can’t be intelligent.” :rolleyes:
I don’t know if it’s kosher to reply to your own post, but the more I think about this the more it sounds stupid to me. I am taking it back. Correct, appropriate, whatever.
Some topics, I care enough about to put up with all sorts of assholes, because it’s important enough for me to get my point across. This ain’t one of them. You want to be a prick about it? Whatever. I don’t feel like wasting any more of my time on you. Feel free to consider this a “victory,” if you’re of a mind. I won’t begrudge you it; I suspect you get precious few of them in real life as it is.
For the record, I think whole bean’s been conducting himself pretty well in this discussion - he’s raised valid points, he’s been as calm and polite as anyone here, and he’s shown himself willing to discuss the issue rationally and avoid some of the histrionics and “la-la-la-I-can’t-here-you” stuff a lot of people engage in.
Frankly, Miller, I’ve been pretty puzzled at your antagonism towards whole bean in this thread.
I’ve enjoyed this thread (though I take it that you and Excalibre have covered this general topic umpteem times).
I’ll buy that. But I’ll also go along with:
“Nucular” is generally considered an incorrect pronunciation (cite: AHD). It sure sounds odd to me. (Oddly enough, this perception is not shared by the military).
On the one hand, pronouncing it “Nucular”, makes the speaker sound somewhat dumb to some audiences (unlike my awkward grammar, typos and tendency to repeat words in adjoining sentences – such traits lead to universal suspicion of cognitive impairment).
“Nucular” also has a folksy ring to it – said ring is a matter of taste.
Now, personally, I’d prefer that the President affected intelligence (eg FDR) rather than down-home charm (GWB). But it’s a weak preference: if swing voters liked it, I wouldn’t mind if my candidate spoke in grunts and whistles.
At any rate, descriptively I can’t find fault with some preferring prestige dialects over the other kinds. Or visa versa. Leaping to hard conclusions about intellectual ability (or snobbery for that matter) is another matter of course.