I Pit "Nukuler"

The BBQ Pit
161

Then explain whether you pronounce it “ahmond” or “almond”. Note that while nowadays the “almond” pronunciation is much more common, the “ahmond” one is actually the older (the L is one of those etymological characters that people started pronouncing.) Next tell us whether they are “apricots” or “ay-pricots”. I’d hate to screw up sometime and not talk the way wolf_meister wants me to.

And you might think you’re making some sort of point by misspelling my name and scrambling around the acronym the message board is known as, but you’re not - unless you’re trying to demonstrate that you’re stupid enough to make invalid comparisons.

162

Left Hand of Dorkness
Actually, I did read this thread. Also, if others had carefully read this thread, they would have seen that in Posting #45 I clearly stated:

So, did everyone think it was not worth taking wolf_meister’s word for this and decided not to do any searching?

Or were all the member’s that read and/or participated in this thread so lazy that they didn’t even bother to look for similar threads?

Left Hand of Dorkness (member since May 1999) and Monty (member since Feb 1999) - did you both have amnesia and forget that there had already been at least two threads on this subject?

Here they are:

Started June 2003

February, 2005

There may have been many more threads on this topic but by damnit I was too lazy and ignorant to look for them.

Heck I knew this was just going be a rehash of the old arguments (or should I say beliefs? opinions?) AND if you look at my previous entries in those other threads, I offered the same arguments (beliefs? opinions?) that I did in this thread. And yes, I got the same crap hurled at me back then too. :smiley:

So, in another year or two when the next “Nuclear or nook-you-lar - you make the call” thread rears its ugly head, let’s go out of our way not to mention these 3 threads so we won’t have people sayin ‘Hey it’s been done before’. I’ll get my ignorance in tune and you folks can get your clever, sharply honed rhetorical skills, so that we can all “have at it” once again.

This pronunciation bullshit was probably resolved in that first thread. (I don’t know I’m too lazy to read it). Personally, now that this 3rd thread has been graced with such pellucid erudition and clarity of thought, I am willing to concede that my ape’s brain cannot possibly compete with the intellectual might of this message board regarding this topic.

And as I said in that 2003 posting, when this board stops being fun, then I’ll leave.
:smiley:

WOAH - I was already set to hit the Submit Reply button, but then Excablier stepped in to offer not one but 2 pointed barbs in my direction.
Excablier, did you read those previous threads to which I alluded so that you could be absolutely sure that you were not in any manner shape or form, rehashing old ground? I mean, let’s not confine people just to reading information that is one paltry thread in the quilt of the Straight Dope Message Board.

Hey kids - it’s only a Message Board.

163

I know I’m rehashing old ground. That’s why I stopped being niced and speculated on your ability to read. I wouldn’t have to rehash old ground if you had actually read and understood the thread. But like you said earlier, you haven’t actually done so. You certainly pop up to offer your opinion in these threads, but you haven’t come up with an argument to support it yet. So it seems kind of pointless. Imagine if a bunch of people were having a discussion about ways to calculate the diameter of the earth, and someone - we’ll call him “fox-master” - decided to pop in and say, “Okay, but in my opinion the earth is flat.” No justification for his opinion, no signs of having even understood the strong arguments the round-earthers have been making (since our hypothetical pal fox-master didn’t bother to explain why he thought they were wrong.)

Jump into these threads all you like. You’re just revealing your stupidity, though.

And I mentioned the spelling dealie with my name in the very last post. Misspelling names is quite possibly the most puerile and childish thing I see people on this board do (although the lesser lights on the board certainly do it sometimes.) You probably think you’re making some kind of point about descriptive linguistics, but it only seems that way because you are, quite obviously, simply far too stupid to understand the big words we’ve been using in this thread.

164

:confused: I’m guessing you’re dense as a neutron star, because you sure think everything revolves around you. When you started linking me back to earlier posts of yours, I thought it’d be because there was substance in them, but dude, those are some substance-free posts. Who gives a shit if you participated in previous threads on the subject? If you were factually wrong then, that just demonstrates that you don’t learn.

I mean, c’mon. Don’t waste my time with links to your proud declarations about yourself. That’s neither fantastic nor pathological, but dumb.

Daniel

165

The Japanese have determined that monkeys have accents too.

Cite

I wonder how long it will take to determine which accent is the “correct” one. :rolleyes:

166

They are a subgroup reportedly prone to pronounce it nukular. Since they use the word as part of their occupation, I thought that they might be worthy of special attention.

-------- Next- they wouldn’t say "“No, actually the dictionary is wrong: people say nukular all the time.” because- AS WE HAVE BEEN SAYING HERE FOR FOUR PAGES- the dictionary says both are ok, thus “the dictionary” is not wrong.

See post 67 by lissener: “Usage Note: The pronunciation (nōō’kyə-lər), which is generally considered incorrect, is an example of how a familiar phonological pattern…” Emphasis added. From the AHD, 2000, 2003.

---- Finally, that is about what the better and large dictionaries DO (except that they bring in a cross section of all Americans, consult media clips, and so forth), and that is why both pronunciations are listed.

Yes: I did not invent the usage panel: I came across the concept in the AHD (an oddly entertaining read, btw).

Admittedly, AHD shows more sophistication than I do. Whereas I focused on the median panel member (of a group conservatively chosen to be sympathetic to the alternative pronunciation), AHD will often try to give the reader a sense of various minority opinions as well.

Anyway, to get to my contention:

I disagree: I hope I’m not picking nits.

My brother used to try to borrow my thesaurus. He would ask for a thesaurasis. I would blink and say, “What object is that, mon frere?”

He knew and I knew that he was pronouncing the word incorrectly. IMHO, correct pronunciation is not defined by comprehension (notwithstanding my obnoxiousness, we both understood what he meant). Rather, it’s defined by social consensus.

Usage panels can be convened to measure such consensus.

A comprehensive description of a language must take into account perceptions of proper usage.

167

This is some damn good advice for anybody on this board. Your sarcasm when writing it is an unfortunate side-effect of your stupidity when writing it. I too have written some dumb, dumb things here, but you seem to wallow in it.

If you ever wise up enough to take your own advice, there are a few essential topics that you should be thinking about (two, or perhaps even three times) before you hit that submit button. It isn’t enough to consider your own mental limitations, but also the effects your limitations will have on a thread. And this applies not just to you, but to me and to everybody.

First, this board is an adjunct to a website dedicated to fighting ignorance. Saying that it’s “just” a website implies that your interaction here is nothing more than a silly diversion for you. Well, it’s not for the rest of us. Sure it’s the pit, but this is a real issue being discussed, in fact a very common issue that most people are ignorant about, thanks in large part to a nation of English teachers who don’t know linguistics. If it’s true that you’re just interested in stimulus/response with the words you type, then your ignorance is a terminal condition, and you serve here only as a necessary reminder of how long we’ll be fighting the good fight. If you’re interested in learning, though, you need to take a different approach.

Second (in the hopes that you’re interested in learning), your statements should be backed as much as possible by evidence. Your side in this fight has zero evidence. If you’d consider this important fact before typing, you’d save us all a lot of trouble when you didn’t hit that submit button, which is something that even the best posters do. There are people here with near or even over 10,000 who refrain from hitting that button if it doesn’t serve a purpose.

Third, you should keep your own purpose in mind when you’re writing. A mind will change here about one time in a hundred. Do you think I’m writing this to you because I think you’ll listen to reason? Not hardly. It’s possible, I guess, but just not likely. No, I’m writing here for the larger audience, as better posters than me have explained in the past. You’ve been acting like a doofus so far, and I have the slightest hope that you’ll recognize that and repent, but if not, then maybe someone else will read the advice and take it to heart.

This battle belongs to the descriptivists. It’s time for you to let it go, and if you’d really been reading more carefully, and actually thinking before posting, you’d’ve realized that before you continued with points that have long since been discussed and dismissed.

168

I don’t think you’re picking nits, but I think your problem lies at the very center of what’s wrong with calling things “correct” or “incorrect.” You and your brother were both under the impression (a false impression, I would say) that there is a “correct” way to say the word. You were playing, flirting with a nonstandard pronunciation for fun.

But your nonstandard pronunciation could become standard one day. Why not? It happens all the time. Why in the world would we have to convene a “panel” to determine whether the new pronunciation is “correct”? And when, exactly, does it become correct? What year? What day? What second?

Is it when 51% percent of the panel decides that it’s correct? What if 98% of people pronounce the word “thesaurasis”, but only 49% of the panel agrees? And who chooses these panels, anyway? What if the panel decides that Shakespearian English is the only “correct” English? How do we decide that the panel is “incorrect”? You see, there is no way for a usage panel to be objective about this. Their decisions are the very definition of arbitrary, and their notions of “correct” and “incorrect” simply misinformed beliefs that are factually wrong from a linguistic standpoint.

Yes, if you’re required to follow AP format for your work and you don’t, that’s incorrect. But for the language in general, the only standard that will ever be necessary is whether communication is helped or hindered by the usage.

169

I’d dearly love to see a cite on that assertion, if you don’t mind.

170

I didn’t make myself clear. My brother couldn’t remember the pronunciation of the word: he just knew that what he was saying was incorrect.

Similarly, I know of 2 ways to pronounce “hubris”, and am of the tentative opinion that one of them is incorrect. hoobris? hyuebris?

Communication (if by that you mean comprehension) isn’t the main criteria for correctness here. Rather, the issue is a) avoiding a moment of confusion for the listener and moreover b) avoiding the appearance of idiocy for the speaker.

----- But your nonstandard pronunciation could become standard one day.

Agreed. It’s just not standard now.

----- Is it when 51% percent of the panel decides that it’s correct?

Nah, that argument doesn’t work. Just because there is no bright line between “dark grey” and “light grey” doesn’t make the distinction invalid.

----- What if 98% of people pronounce the word “thesaurasis”, but only 49% of the panel agrees? And who chooses these panels, anyway? What if the panel decides that Shakespearian English is the only “correct” English? How do we decide that the panel is “incorrect”? You see, there is no way for a usage panel to be objective about this.

C’mon. The panels can be chosen by experts, specifically editors of dictionaries. There’s no reason why language can’t be measured in this manner, using standard focus group techniques and statisitical methodology.

Admittedly, I’ve been a little jokey in this thread: I like to imbue these panels with Final Authority on Matters of Pronunciation and Definition, when what’s really occuring is expert reportage of common usage. In practice they don’t pretend to have the final word: I pretend that they do.

------ But for the language in general, the only standard that will ever be necessary is whether communication is helped or hindered by the usage.

Arguably, communication is hindered by nonstandard pronunciation, though Excalibre et al will hasten to note that the resulting damage is vastly overstated.

171

Well, since I’m really not into minimalism, let me expand my previous posting:

I’d dearly love to see a cite that the military, as a group, is “prone to pronounce it nukular.” I’ve heard it pronounced both ways during my stint in the military. That’s not too surprising given that the members of our military come from many different places and social strata.

172

No problem.

I picked it up from LHD’s post 47: He cited this page.

The relevant stuff is in the last 2 paragraphs.

Pretty thin evidence actually. But, hey, I said reportedly prone for a reason …

[on preview]

Permit me back away from “prone”, and settle for, “… apparently many military personnel pronounce it as nukular”.

Monty: is it fair to say that, based upon your experiences, you would disagree with AHD’s contention that nukular is “commonly thought to be an incorrect pronunciation”?

This is separate from the question about whether such a perception would be especially meaningful. Again, I’m only arguing for the latter: I wouldn’t be shocked if nukular was a bona fide standard pronounciation in certain circles.

173

You’re proving yourself wrong with your own example. If we’re looking at the same moonless night, and I say it’s bright, would you say that’s invalid? Incorrect? C’mon. Even if 99.999999% of people would also say it’s “dark”, that doesn’t mean that your perception of the sky is somehow better, more “valid” or “correct”, just because my eyes are more sensitive to light in comparison to the rest of humanity.

It would be helpful* when we’re communicating* if our definitions of bright and dark were more in synch, yes, but that doesn’t make one magically correct and the other not. Your words and mine are arbitrary, not right and wrong. I’d best learn what you mean pretty quick if we wanna talk to each other, but if you visit my family, you would need to learn what we mean. Not because our own definition is correct, but because there will be no communication otherwise.

What is “bright”? How many candelas per square meter is the proper, correct, valid definition? What percent of speakers determines proper usage? They are the same sorts of questions, and any answers your usage panel gives are totally arbitrary and subjective, the exact opposite of the objective standard you wish to create.

In the OP’s case, it is indeed vastly overstated. The only people tripped up by “nucular” are those who choose to be. A reaction of “What the hell did that mean?” is understandable. A reaction of “That’s incorrect” comes from a person who understands, but would rather criticize than listen.

174

Even “tripped up” is probably too strong. Taking another example, I trus that this sentenc does nt trip yo up, even if it is mispeled. Perhaps, “distracted” or “slowed down” would be more accurate.

I think you’re on thinner ice here. True, it is more difficult to measure things that are on a continuum with standard interrogative techniques. But that doesn’t imply that characterizations such as “bright”, “dark” or “incorrect pronunciation” are meaningless.

Nor is the problem especially challenging, in practice: weathermen use terms such as hot, windy and cool all the time.

Again, if you ignore my (and my brother’s) belief that “thesaurasis” is an incorrect pronounciation (currently) then I’d contend that you are descriptively missing something about the language.

175

Not meaningless. Subjective. What prompted my initial post here was your argument for an objective standard. And though my particular example was not challenging (which made it, in my mind, a wonderful example), it demonstrates quite well the whole arbitrary nature of the beast, which renders words like “correct” worthless as far as I’m concerned.

I’d give you “incorrect” for your own purposes. Like the reporter who is obligated to follow AP standards and doesn’t is incorrect, you have your own standards. But as far as some usage authority declaring what’s proper and correct for one and all? No, absolutely not, because there’s simply no such thing.

And I think I’ll leave it at that.

176

Usually, when I see sentences spelled that way they’re chosen specifically to “make a point.” The interesting thing to me is that point completely ignores the many times in English where such misspellings do change the meaning. In other words, it doesn’t prove a thing.

{snip}

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.

177

And many military personnel don’t pronounce it that way. Our military is a cross-section of our society. We have people in the military from all regions of the country and all economic strata. I’d be surprised if we didn’t have some military personnel pronouncing it as nukular.

That would depend on what they mean by commonly thought. Do they mean the general population, do they mean linguists, or do they mean people who have an axe to grind agains the President for using that pronunciation when the person with the axe to grind is inserting r willy-nilly into words.

It is a standard pronunciation in certain circles.

178

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- becuase- it is CONSIDERED INCORRECT by quite a few, as evidecned 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 pronuciation “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. That’s the whole thing about descriptivist Dictionaries and usages- they don’t attempt to PRESCRIBE- they DESCRIBE how the langue actually is being used. And, I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’ll bet you wouldn’t either, as many of those Dictionaries are published by dudes who likely say “toMAHto”. :rolleyes: And, I certainly wouldn’t want them to say “toMAYto” is wrong. Would you? In fact, generally prescritivists are that way until the “experts” upon whihc they love to point to as the source of 'rightness" disagree with them on how to pronounce something. :rolleyes:

But let’s face facts- the only reason this particular usage gets so much attention here is because of GWB. And, since he has an Ivy league education and the best speech coaches in the world- he pronounces that word using the second usage ON PURPOSE, because the experts have told him to. Why? Because he wants to appear folksy and not highbrow, as “Mr & Mrs Middle America” don’t trust dudes that sound highbrow. Witness the Gore-Bush debates whee Gore ran rings around Bush- yet Bush won. Bush won- becaase Americans thought Gore sounded too “smartass” condesending and intellectual (which Gore was, of course). You don’t think that Bush couldn’t have sounded smarter in those debates? Of course he could. But he went for the “folksy downhome” bit as his experts said it’d win him the Election- which it did. Bush certainly isn’t as smart as Gore, but he ain’t dumb, either.

179

Could you provide some proof of this?

180

Crud. I wasn’t clear in my last posting.

I agree with you that the only reason it’s receiving so much attention is because of President Bush’s pronunciation (see post #177). What I’m curious about is your assertion that Bush is using that pronunciation on purpose.

Don’t worry about the assertion that Bush could’ve “sounded smarter” in those debates. I’m not one of the loons that thing the man’s an absolute moron. He has more education than I.