That really, really is not the way anyone of any dialect says it in the UK.
And you leave off the ‘San.’ I had friends from there, and they never ever say anything other than just Peedro.
Every Brit I’ve ever heard pronounces it that way.
Nope. That’s CONdom, not CON-DOM. The difference to US pronunciation is that we say the “o” rather than eliding it to a schwa - usually it’s the other way round - but there is not equal stress on both parts.
(Though, obviously, with a condom it would usually be equal stress on both parts, absent safe words).
And to American ears that puts equal (or close to equal stress) on both syllables. It sounds to us almost as if you are saying two separate words close together, rather than one word with two syllables.
Yeah, in what Slithy Tove posted it does sound like two different words. It sounds like an AI putting sounds together.
If you can’t hear the difference between CON-DOM in that cite, and CON-dom, that’s on you. There are an awful lot of American English words that follow that pattern, after all.
I grew up in Ellwood City, a town the Connoquenessing flows through. When I worked for the local newspaper I ended up making a hotkey for that word because I got sick to death of typing it all the time. Bonus fun fact: Ellwood City is also the namesake of the town in the Arthur cartoon. (Arthur spells it wrong. There are two “L’s” in the city’s name.)
I agree with this, as an American with ears. That’s how it is perceived by me.
Ok
I guess you know best what I hear. Thanks for setting me straight.
Yay!!! That made my night. (puts away the bottle)
Do you and MikeCurtis really not hear any difference in stress, there?
I mean in the QI video, You don’t hear any difference?
Maybe it’s because they’re both vowel sounds that aren’t really used in American English, so you notice them more. But CON-DOM really does sound like a teenager trying to buy their first one, and not just because it’s also the way you show shouting. We don’t say that - we say CON-dom.
I’m not telling anyone what they hear, I’m telling you what British people say - and hear. So if there’s any “you know best” going on, it’s not coming from my end. You guys are literally telling me how British people pronounce words 
OED: Stress only on the first syllable. Not just from the way you hear the word, but from the ’ to indicate stress. The second syllable is not stressed.
I always assumed Brits called em cock socks. Or is that the Aussies?
I think it could be a blue dress/gold dress thing. We don’t just form words differently but hear them differently.
JFK, don’t blame you at all. I’m sure you could say it, but writing it, even if you know the spelling - your fingers would give up and wave a white flag.
No, I get what you’re saying. I do hear the difference you’re talking about, but, to my ears, because the second syllable isn’t schwa’d, it sounds like it has almost equal stress to the first syllable (though it does seem like in some dialects the second syllable is a schwa.)
Note that I personally am not saying how you guys pronounce words. I’m saying what my perception as an American speaker is and how it comes across to my ears. We’ve had rather lively discussions about how “Canadian raising” is perceived on both sides of the border here in North America in words like “about.” What you hear and perceive and a speaker of another dialect hears and perceives can be quite different.
Absolutely - like I mentioned with the yanni thing before. But that doesn’t mean that, if the dictionary for the dialect of that language disagrees with you, and a person who speaks that dialect also disagrees with you, your POV is equally valid.
It’s like that cartoon people post, where there’s one person standing one side of a line, and one person on the other, and the number could be 6 or it could be 9, depending on who’s looking at it. But in the real world, there would be other numbers next to those, and the numbers do have meaning. If you had a permit for number 5, and tried to back in to park in the spot for number 8, you would be in the wrong spot.
Context counts, not just opinion.
But I don’t think the dictionary disagrees. Yes, there is a stress on the first syllable, but there’s no such thing as a two syllable word in English without a primary stress somewhere. @mikecurtis states himself “or close to equal stress.” They are close to equal: same vowel length, same vowel; in American English the word has a long vowel (in the linguistic sense) /a:/ and a reduced vowel in the second syllable, so much bigger contrast between first and second syllables. Musically, I hear the British pronunciation as almost straight eighths, while the American “condom” is a swung pair of notes. (This will make no sense if you don’t do music, but that’s how I hear stress patterns in my head when, say, reading poetry.)
That said, now that I re-read the past few posts, yes, that AI-generated “condom” sounds stilted and weird compared with the “condom” in the QI clip, which is how I’m used to hearing “condom” in UK English.
No, Sam’s right. British condom does stress the first syllable, ever so slightly, but sounds strange to us because our condom omits the vowel and is pronounced “condm.”
However, there’s got to be some two syllable word in our language out there with equal stress on both, simply because its a rule-breaking language.
I don’t disagree with any of that. In fact, that’s part (or most) of the point I’m making.
If you could find one that is marked as such (for example, no primary stress marked, or two equal stress markers), I’d be curious to see that. I don’t think there’s such a thing, even though there are many words I would consider prosodically as spondees, i.e., having two stresses. They all will have a marking in the dictionary that shows a stress on one of the syllables. For example, “beefcake” to me is a spondee. In the dictionary, it’s marked with an accent on the first syllable. So much as there is an accent, it is minimal to my ears.