I just watched a show on the Military Channel called "Futureweapons", and it was about nuclear weapons. it was an interesting show, though a little short on details (watch "Trinity and Beyond" for a fantastic review of the American nuclear program — and the music is phenomenal too).
But I bring this up, because the narrator, who was also the host, kept saying "nuke you lur".
The first time I heard it, I thought I was mistaken. By the fifth time, I realized it was the producers who were mistaken. They let a guy narrate a documentary who couldn’t pronounce a word? And not just any word, but the word, the one the whole show was about?
Mispronouncing the word nuclear does not make you stupid; I know an astronomer who pronounces it that way (as another prof once told me, he’s the smartest guy you’ll ever hear say it that way). I can certainly think of some not-so-smart people who mispronounce it, too.
But why oh why didn’t they train the guy to say it the right way? Maybe they did, and he refused, or couldn’t get it right, or they just let it slide. The world of documentary making is a weird one. I’ve only seen my little slices of it when I do a bit for some show or another. I know that they spend five hours interviewing me, and using me for like 20 seconds in the actual show. So maybe there is a level of insanity I can only glimpse.
But c’mon. Nuke you lur?
Sigh.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Exasperating, ain’t it?
March 9th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
You’ve got a “military channel” over there? And you’re actually watching it? That’s weird.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I’m going to have to check the pronunciation using the Google on the internets.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
The English language isn’t static. New words are added all the time, old words dropped, and sometimes words change in pronounciation and/or spelling. Just look at ketchup and catsup.
Nuclear is one word for which the pronounciation is changing, even though the alternative pronounciation is disapproved of by many.
If you want a completely unchanging language, pick Latin or some other dead language. Living languages evolve.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
*Gasp!* He done misdispronunciated a word!
I have a smart friend who says it that way too, a virtue of his growing up in the South I guess. I see the same series replayed on the Discovery Channel and it irks me greatly that we spend so much money on crap we haven’t needed to use on current most hostile enemies. Don’t get me wrong, I know we’re working on those too and I have a love affair with all things military, but I think Eisenhower warned us about this.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Dysletic sign on a door: DEPARTMENTof UNCLEAR SCIENCE.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I’ll save you some time, Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucular
March 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
Randall, I think you missed my political humor.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
There are always persons who strangely ‘mispronounce’ words, I know of someone who says ’sub-tel’ instead of ’suttel’ when pronouncing ’subtle’ and someone who says ’spears’ when talking about ’spheres’!?!
I don’t know where they pick up their particular enunciation of these words, but it is always a bit jarring when I hear them.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
You’ve got a “military channel†over there? And you’re actually watching it? That’s weird.
Yep.. I think there are TWO channels, depending on whether DishNet or DirecTV.
The show FUTUREWEAPONS also airs on DISCOVERY CHANNEL.
J/P=?
March 9th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
It is spelled nuclear. It is, thusly, pronounced NEW-CLEAR. Why do people find this difficult? Those are two words even a first grader knows. So, because a word’s misuse or mispronunciation is widespread, the language should change? I mean, I suppose I can understand that logic to an extent – but why with such an easy word? I mean, really, nuclear is not a difficult word to spell or pronounce. If we’re going to change the spelling of words, can’t we start with the completely useless “gh”?
As Eddie Izzard (a Brit) says, “…But you spell ‘through’ T-H-R-U, and I’m with you on that, ‘cause we spell it ‘THRUFF,’ and that’s trying to cheat at Scrabble.”
March 9th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
The story is (not sure if it’s true) the Eisenhower started the “nookular” mispronunciation. Personally, I think anyone with their finger on the button should be required by law to be able to pronouce the word correctly.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
i dunno, i’m from boston and if i got up there pronouncing it Nucleah the way we tend to do up here, i dont think thats wrong. Likewise, i think thats just how they tend to do it in the south as far as i can tell.
March 9th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I live in Texas, so nuke-you-ler is nothing unusual. But then we’ve got real-a-tors to sell our houses for us.
I’m orginally from England where some people play bad-ming-ton to pass the time, but worst of all is those darn Americans who want to watch ladies and gentlemen play tennis at Wimble-ton (wherever that is).
March 9th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Erm, I’m not sure you got my point Daffy.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Does it really matter if the meaning is understood?
I was told once (I hope this is true) that the word ‘bird’ in Old English was originally ‘Brid’.
It doesn’t really matter if everyone knows what you mean. Certainly far less irritating and potentially damaging than the product shown yesterday with a diagram and pictures showing the planets mixed up.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I know a fellow from the outter fringes of Ontario who does the same – he works for nuclear plant. Something about safety and that where he does no actual sciency things….he was even amazed when it was spelled out for him to prove (or to show evidence) that it was phonetically improper. He was more amazed at the spelling…”"really, that is how they spell it? Ah, I drive by that big sign every day and I didnt know that…”.
….I hope he pays more attention to the safety there.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I don’t know Phil, I’ve seen that show and the host is a pretty scary guy. If I was the producer I’d probably be too scared to correct the guy.
March 9th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
For what it is worth, one of the inventors of the nuclear bomb, pronounced it “nuke you lur”. As do many of the scientists at national labs.
Don’t take my word for, take Richard Muller’s. (Who is he? See wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller
This blogger heard it in a lecture of his, as have I:
http://abstractfactory.blogspot.com/2005/11/thoughts-on-nucular.html
March 9th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
A teacher corrected me on that particular word back in the fifth grade. I still slip sometimes, but once “nucular” escapes my mouth I mentally kick myself.
I still love those speeches by JFK back during the Cuban missile crisis talking about “any nuclear missile launched from CUBER…” He pronounced nuclear right, but where’s “Cuber”?
March 9th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Sure, it can be pronounced nucular. If so, however, I must ask if the users of this pronunciation also refer the nuculons in the nuculus of the atom? Do they also speak of raindrop formation via nuculation?
March 9th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Where I come from (the Mountains) we pronounce Nuclear like ‘nuke you lur’ insted of ‘nuclear’ (I dunno how to spell it out!) It doesn’t really matter as long as you know what the person’s talking about. I know someone who says people as ‘Pee-Oh-pel’ It’s funny but it just comes naturaly (Na-tru-lly or Na-turaly?)
March 9th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
If your break down the word into syllables, it becomes nu-cle-ar. Nuclear. Or phonetically, nooklee-er. The problem with people who misdispronunciateerize it on national TV *coupresidentgh* is that it tells everyone the wrong way, and more things slip and the sun explodes and everyone DIES.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
tacitus Says: “I live in Texas, so nuke-you-ler is nothing unusual.”
But even Slim Pickens got it right in “Dr. Strangelove” although he put the emphasis oddly: “This is it, boys! NU-CLE-AR combat toe-to-toe with the Ruskies!”
The folks above are correct about English being an evolving language. This isn’t any worse than the prepositions you are not suppose to end a sentence with.
- Jack
March 9th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
The ‘cl’ sound in nuclear is just a rapid ‘ca-lah’ sound.
It could be argued that nucular is just a different way of pronouncing nu-ca-lah-ee-ar, changing the emphasis on the ‘cl’ sound.
Thus- it may be more a difference in dielect than mispronunciation.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Edward Teller said it that way.
March 9th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I’ll have to check that out. If Teller said it that way, I will too. He’s my hero. Well… I do have an autographed photo of him over my bed. (no… really… seriously… I do).
Also, if you liked the music and nukes in Trinity and beyond, you should check out my video project!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo48YpNOesQ
March 9th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Hey, it’s gotta be right. That’s the way the flaming Bush says it and the pres is ALWAYS right, right?
Gary 7
March 9th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Irregardless of all that…
(Just to clarify, I hate the ‘word’ irregardless and mentally kick anyone who uses it.)
Oh, and similar to nook-you-ler is the month of Feb-you-ary, as opposed to February.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Well, maybe it isn’t all that similar, but I thought I’d throw it out there…
March 9th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Why is it, when enough people make the same mistake it becomes right?
This is why we don’t use Old English anymore.
Wrong today, might be right tomorrow.
March 9th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Well I have to admit to pronouncing “probably” as “probly” because well I am from Texas. Yeah I know that Texas. I finally had to learn the proper spelling because my spell checker always caught my error. Damn spell checker. I actually visited a guy from the Nuclear Regulatory Committee for a project and I think he did pronounce it the same way as Bush. This was ‘86 when I talked to him. Long before Bush junior and before Bush senior. Its just one of those things, “po-ta-toe” “po”-”taa”-”toe”
March 9th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Language creates conciousness. Simple mispronounciations and misuses of words pollute the mindspace.
I have a computer programmer friend who pronounces “Authentication” as “Authentification”. Very smart guy, just learned the word wrong. Likewise, bosses who say “that’s a ‘Mute Point’”, people saying “Aspirated” instead of “Exasperated”, the hated “Irregardless” instead of “Irrespective”, the diabolical “Eminent” instead of “Imminent” and so on… The trouble is that the brain is not like a computer at all; when you have a thought, any thought, that thought (word/image/emotion) is etched into your brain as a pathway and experiencing that (word/image/emotion) is easier the next time, until eventually it is burned in and becomes part of the hardware, not the software. Human conciousness is a result of an internal, language-based dialog where abstract concepts can be thought/imagined/constructed by mentally using their verbal symbols. Culture is mostly derived from the language you learn as an infant while your nerve pathways are forming; your native language, burned into the hardware in your skull, is the language you “think” in, and thus the structure by which concepts are associated is permanently derived from your native language, as you learned to pronounce it.
That was a big stupid digression. Sorry.
My problem is that the misuse or mispronounciation of words degrades their meaning. Nuke-Lee-Arr (ARR, Matey), as a word, is constructed with internal, self-evident meaning (of or pertaining to a nucleus). Pronouncing it correctly conveys this meaning perfectly, in that the force being discussed comes from the nucleus of the atom. In two hundred years, when every English-speaker on the planet has converted to saying “Nuke-YOU-Lerr”, this built-in meaning will be lost, at least phonetically (until the spelling is eventually changed to match the new phonetics). There is “Science” in the word “Nuclear” itself, in that the word itself defines the energy source, whereas the word “Nuke-you-ler” strips the science out of it and makes it into an abstract token, like “widget”. The word no longer defines itself, it has been polluted by other meanings and is more difficult to understand and explain. To retain the meaning, the word “Nucleus” would have to evolve simultaneously into “Nuke-you-luss” so that the relationship would be preserved. If the root word and the derived word diverge, the meaning of both becomes muddled.
Languages evolve naturally over time, and the English language is particularly easy to corrupt. In this day and age, meanings are fused into the internal dialog and words are learned, internalized, and written into the gray matter hardware before ever being pronounced. L33T Speak is one example, but it is not phonetic and thus does not have an effect on the way nerve pathways form.
There is no conciousness without language, and language defines the laws of conciousness. The evolution of language is a random, uncontrolled, messy process which constantly seeks to shortcut and subvert itself. The emergence of mutant word-forms like “Nuke-you-ler” and “Irregardless” are akin to genetic mutations that scramble the genetic code. In ten thousand years, how many forms of English will exist? And will speakers of one form be able to understand the others? Will we have “Mars English” where nuclear is pronounced “Nuke-lee-arr” (Arr, Matey) and “Old Earth English” where it is pronounced “NUKE-LERR”?
Kinda makes me wistful for Esperanto.
March 9th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Also, I love Futureweapons and am not at all surprised that MAx said “Nuke-you-ler”.
He’s not … um … you know, I’m just going to let him keep saying it that way.
March 9th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
All I have to say to this is, Huh? You manage to misunderstand language, evolution, and consciousness in the short span of three sentences. Indeed, most of the folk wisdom about the connection between language, thought, and culture in your post is demonstrably wrong.
How many forms of English exist right now? You’ve got New England English, West Coast English, Southern English, a gazillion forms of British English, ghetto English, and I’m only scratching the surface. Dialects are a fact of language; they’re not “corruptions,” as there is no Platonic English Language to corrupt.
Yet for some reason, in spite of the fact that I understand that a prescriptive approach to language is absurd, I cannot help but be annoyed by the “nucular” pronunciation. Actually, it’s not completely mysterious to me — I suspect it’s because I stereotype people who pronounce the word that way as dumb. Dialects have interesting social consequences.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Dialects have interesting social consequences.
True. The BBC used to require its presenters to use RP–Received Pronunciation–(essentially a posh southern English access), and anyone who didn’t use it was usually seen as common, from the lower classes. Over the past quarter century that policy was slowly abandoned and you can here all kinds of British accents on the Beeb, although all the newsreaders and most of the continuity announcers still seem to use RP, so it is still used when they want to convey serious information with authority.
And most regional dialects are still used stereotypically in many shows. Cockneys are happy-go-lucky wide boys, West Country yokels are innocent, slow-witted fellows, Scousers (from Liverpool) are working class salt-of-the-earth characters with a bit of a edge to them, and so on. Not much has changed on that front.
I think though, that the mispronounced words that really get peoples’ gander up are those that have the appearance of sloppy thinking–i.e. they are not really part of their region’s dialect or accent. For example, when Texans use real-a-tor, even though it’s pretty blatant and the extra “a” is entirely superfluous, it doesn’t seem all that out of place given the way most Texans speak.
However, we all know “Dubya” is not a Texan–his background is every bit as silver-spoon as other New England politicos despite moving to Texas when he was a little boy–so his mispronunciation of nuclear seems like an annoying affectation to many, something–along with his folksy Texan accent–he deliberately cultivated.
The same goes for another example I gave–Wimble-ton (instead of Wimble-don). It took sports anchor Stuart Scott almost a decade to get that one right on ESPN Sportscenter of all places. There should have been no excuse for that one.
Mute point
Ugh! I really hate this one. This probably stems from the fact that few people know the existence of the word “moot” and completely substituting another word they think sounds like it fits. I actually read “mute point” in a newspaper article this very afternoon.
There again, I’m not without guilt. Our family still uses the expression “just a slither” when asked how much cake they want. I believe I was the one who, as a little boy, strove and almost succeeded in using a grown-up word I’d heard my parents use.
March 9th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
The problem many seem to have with mispronunciation is that most here are English speakers, and with limited notable exceptions English dialects are for the most part mutually intelligible. Yet as an Arabic speaker I can tell you that substituting elisions and consonants is common between dialects in Arabic which is a higher context language and much less forgiving (Slight intonations can change a word’s form or meaning). So in essence, dialects/slang forms change the pronunciation of the original root in phonetic languages all the time. The French used to pronounced all of the letters in a word, until the pronunciation of those words changed, and everyone seems to think it’s rather sophisticated.
Just like nuclear being written one way, and pronounced another. Sometimes speakers from two different Arab regions cannot understand each other without reverting to the standard formal language taught in schools and used in journalism.
English won’t be as monolithic as it is now forever. Linguistic evolution is faster than the biological stuff, but we won’t live to see it. In less than 200 years, American-English and British-English have moved apart not just in terms of word usage and order, but in fundamental grammar. Take the old nursery rhyme:
“Ba ba black sheep, have you any wool?” Americans don’t use that grammar, we ask “do you?”, and “do” at one point, as Corey put it, was “constructed with internal, self-evident meaning”. That changed too.
March 9th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Davis Says: “How many forms of English exist right now? You’ve got New England English, West Coast English, Southern English, a gazillion forms of British English, ghetto English, and I’m only scratching the surface. Dialects are a fact of language; they’re not “corruptions,†as there is no Platonic English Language to corrupt.”
Twenty years ago PBS did a series “The Story of English” by Robert McNeil. It took eight 1-hour shows just to cover the variations.
- Jack
March 10th, 2007 at 12:00 am
The Military Channel used to be the Discovery Wings Channel, which covered topics in aerospace. I preferred the channel in its previous form.
I had a statistics professor who kept pronouncing “height” with a “th” sound. I couldn’t blame him too much since I did the same thing when I was a kid; that pronunciation seemed to naturally follow “length” and “width”.
While driving on a rural road in Texas last month, I hit a coyote. I heard it pronounced ky-O-tee and KY-oat. Is there a preferred pronunciation?
March 10th, 2007 at 12:20 am
To Corey:
You say that “There is no conciousness without language, and language defines the laws of conciousness”. Does the name Helen Keller ring a bell? What about babies? They do not have any language. Does that mean they are not concious? What about if I have a stroke, and lose my ability to speak and understand language? Does that mean I have no conciousness?
The relationship between a word (the lingusitic sign) and its meaning is arbitrary. That is why a Norwegian (as my self) can say “hund” and you can say “dog” and we will still be referring to the same creature. That is also why a change in the spelling (or pronunciation) of a word does not mean that the meaning of that entity which the word is referring to is changed. In English it is normal that the spelling stays the same while the pronunciation changes. Just think of knee, knight and knife for instance, where the k’s where once pronounced, but the meaning is still the same now as then! My point is that I cannot see how mispronounciations of words can possibly “degrade their meaning”.
Of course, a word can over time change meaning, like “mistress”, but this is not what is happening with “nuclear” as far as I can see. It would be a shame, and have potentially dangerous consequenses, if that person working on the nuclear plant (cf. Monkey’s comment) had another internal definition of what nuclear meant, just because he had a different pronunciation!
March 10th, 2007 at 12:31 am
I have made a large amount of pronounciation mistakes by 1) reading more than I talk to people and 2) pronouncing words as they are *spelled* rather than how they are pronounced. I pronounced lingerie as “lingerie” for years …
March 10th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Don’t forget my favorite case study, Genie, who provided some evidence in support of the “Critical Period Hypothesis” of language acquisition.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:44 am
(no offense intended, just some humor)
Nuclear is for nucleum. I guess nucular is for nuculum? ::-)
Maybe emerikan (or was ameircan?) just can’t be bodered (or was bothered?) with silly things like keeping the appropiate link between a borrowed word and the language from which it’s borrowed. I have a suggestion, why don’ t you just create your own words? Why borrow “nuclear” or “nucleum” from Latin? Sure there is some angleesh (english?) word that fits the same meaning.
From a dude who speaks two romanic languages and never ceases to be amazed on how emerikan just can’t respect older cultures: “Nuclear” is our word, not yours, so speak it straight or replace it… will you, barbarians?
March 10th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Bill Bones, why should we not keep doing what we have always done. Enlish is the language of stolen words. We started with Germanic language and then took in the Anglo-Saxon and folded it in and then the Normans came, and later took the new Norman (French) and then when ‘en’ no longer suited us for plural we stole the Spanish ’s’. Stealing is ingrained in the language, so why not take Latin and Greek words when we need new ones.:-)
And , HvP, having grew up with lantinos all my life it’s ‘koo ba’ not ‘kue ba’. So there!
March 10th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I really don’t care how people pronounce a word. Mispronunciations just make it harder to spell the darn things. On the other hand, I do like feeling superior to George Bush so I hope he continues sounding like a down homey hick,,,
Language evolves. It’s one of the most mutable aspects of our existance and a classic example of Darwinism in action, ie, they are mutations which likely have no use, either good or bad, until the environment changes and one of those mutations confers a survival advantage. Example? If I came into some personal contact with Georgie boy, it might be advatageous to sound as dim as him. After all, he is stinking rich,,,
Gary 7
March 10th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Coyote? I grew up in Montana where it’s always ky-ote, never ky-o-tee. The latter is of course closer to the original Spanish. My mother gives me a bad time if I say it with three sylables. Another critter with regional variation is what we called the mountain lion, known around here (Washington State) as a cougar. And elsewhere as a puma.
I’m surprised nobody has mentioned Jimmy Carter, who clamed to be a nukular engineer.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:58 am
The truth is, some pronunciations are shibboleths, pure and simple. Others, equally “wrong”, are not. Just as sentence modifying “hopefully” is decried but “frankly” or “honestly” are accepted.
It’s irrational and therefore stirs powerful emotions. As for Bill Bones’ suggestion, Poul Anderson did this:
Uncleftish Beholding
For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made
of, but could only guess. With the growth of worldken, we began
to learn, and today we have a beholding of stuff and work that
watching bears out, both in the workstead and in daily life.
The underlying kinds of stuff are the *firststuffs*, which link
together in sundry ways to give rise to the rest. Formerly we
knew of ninety-two firststuffs, from waterstuff, the lightest and
barest, to ymirstuff, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such
as aegirstuff and helstuff.
The firststuffs have their being as motes called *unclefts*.
These are mightly small; one seedweight of waterstuff holds a
tale of them like unto two followed by twenty-two naughts. Most
unclefts link together to make what are called *bulkbits*. Thus,
the waterstuff bulkbit bestands of two waterstuff unclefts, the
sourstuff bulkbit of two sourstuff unclefts, and so on. (Some
kinds, such as sunstuff, keep alone; others, such as iron, cling
together in ices when in the fast standing; and there are yet
more yokeways.) When unlike clefts link in a bulkbit, they make
*bindings*. Thus, water is a binding of two waterstuff unclefts
with one sourstuff uncleft, while a bulkbit of one of the
forestuffs making up flesh may have a thousand thousand or more
unclefts of these two firststuffs together with coalstuff and
chokestuff.
Sweet, no? read the rest here
March 10th, 2007 at 8:12 am
This isn’t language evolving. This isn’t a vowel sound being changed over time, or a neologism, or a shift in the meaning of a word, or a change in popular spelling. It’s a bunch of people failing to realise how the word is spelt, and saying the letters in the wrong order. It’s wrong, plain and simple.
March 10th, 2007 at 8:35 am
In the U.S. at least, the “nu-ku-ler” pronunciation isn’t limited to uneducated people or to a particular part of the country. My father is a highly educated man who reads about the history of mathematical theorems in his spare time, and he has always pronounced it “nu-ku-ler”. I used to prounounce it that way myself, until people started telling me that I was pronouncing it wrong, and I changed my pronunciation.
It’s true that “new-clear” is much closer to the way that the word is actually spelled, but of all languages, English is probably one of the worst for pronouncing words as they are spelled, or pronouncing words in any consistent way!
March 10th, 2007 at 9:26 am
I have to go with Ed Minchau and Nic on this one. It reminds of the word ‘often’.
I was taught that the ‘t’ was silent. I even have an old dictionary that shows it that way. Today I hear it said with the ‘t’ pronounced everywhere, especially by the younger folks. I checked a newer dictionary and it shows it pronounced both ways! The meaning is still the same.
March 10th, 2007 at 9:26 am
I can’t understand the amount of response pondering the word’s pronunciation. Jeez, people, it’s wrong!
Ibraham said it all in two words in his first post: Discovery Channel. (Military Channel is part of the Discovery Network.) Aren’t these the people who present all the alien abduction, crop circle, and Roswell rot? I don’t think they’re too concerned with accuracy as long as they attract an audience, and I’ll bet those who would know the difference are a small part of that audience.
haffax: Ya, we got The Military Channel. Like someone before me pointed out, it used to be Discovery Wings. It showed all sorts of aerospace stuff, both military and civilian, but, evidently, that didn’t attract that audience I was talking about.
March 10th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Hey Space Cadet , so long as we’re on the topic of pronunciation, it’s Ibrahim not “Ibraham”
March 10th, 2007 at 9:51 am
I am quite surprised by the number of people contributing here who find incorrect language use acceptable. This is, after all, a science blog and in science one is expected to be accurate.
There, Their, They’re(choose one at random, as many bloggers do) seems to be some confusion between regional accents and proper pronunciation here as well.
It seems to me that clear thinking requires the proper use of language.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Homer Simpson pronounces it ‘nucular’. That should be the end of this discussion
March 10th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hmmm.
I pronounce it new-clear.
But as far as I am concerned, people who make fun of folks who prefer new-cul-lar are being the worst kind of provincialism-pandering bigots.
Do you really think that being from the south or the midwest makes you stupid? As far as am concerned, such an attitude is a better indication of stupidity.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:29 am
OK, here’s my pet peeve: Media. The word is plural, folks. If you say “the liberal media is doing…” then you is wrong. Twice.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:44 am
The error you’re making is taking it as a given that language use X is “incorrect” — i.e., you’re a prescriptivist. Linguists, i.e., the scientists who study language, have long ago abandoned the prescriptive approach to language. Correct or incorrect is determined 100% by popular usage; as I said earlier, there is no Platonic English Language which we should all aspire to.
I’d recommend taking a trip over to Language Log for some linguists’ takes on ‘nucular’, starting with this post, then this one. The latter traces the ‘nucular’ “mistake” back to 200BC, sort of.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Call me elitist, but when I hear such a blatant mispronunciation, especially from someone who’s supposed to be educated, and most particularly when that someone is in an authoritarian position, the mispronunciation causes me to blank out the next bit that they say, much as a blast from an air horn deafens one for a few seconds. Then my opinion of them is somewhat diminished, and I give slightly less credence to whatever it is they’re trying to say.
Certainly, no one is exempt from making the occasional error in processing new linguistic information. I was in my 30’s before I discovered that ‘exacerbated’ was not ‘exscaberated’. Somehow, I had processed it in association with a scab being removed from a wound — not a totally remote connection — but once the mistake was brought to my attention, I began immediately using the correct form. Is this too much to expect from those in positions that involve transmitting information to large audiences, or those who wish to be taken seriously?
Regional colloquialisms are not the same as formal speech. Coyote is properly pronounced kò.yóe.tee, from the Indigenous-by-way-of-Spanish pronunciation. The final ‘e’ is not silent, and should be pronounced, as it is in ‘anemone’. My personal feeling is that the final ‘e’ was originally dropped by those wishing to differentiate themselves from the native speakers. This is a common reason for mispronouncing words, and is not unlike what I suspect are Duh-bya’s reasons for his mispronunciations, malapropisms, and neologisms. I suspect that he (or his handlers) believe it gives him more of an air of ‘I’m not REALLY a filthy rich scion of an oligarchically-inclined New England dynasty. No, really, I’m just somebody you’d like to have a beer with. See? I even talk like John Wayne pretended to.’
But I digress. The fact remains that nuclear is pronounced núe.klee.yer. To pronounce it núe.kyoo.ler is to label oneself as either linguistically careless at best or subliterate at worst.
March 10th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Well, Daffy, here’s one of my pet peeves: The word media does not automatically mean ‘news media’ any more than UFO means alien space craft. As a matter of fact the word ‘media’ has been distorted in this fashion only fairly recently. If you use the word media you must use a modifier if you wish to be clear.
March 10th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Fascinating how engaging this subject is.
Arrrgh.
Can’t hold back… I have to mention it….
My pet peeve is pronouncing drawing as drawring.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I cried when I dropped a consonant, until I saw the man who had no vowels.
March 10th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
OK, here’s my pet peeve: Media. The word is plural, folks. If you say “the liberal media is doing…†then you is wrong. Twice.
Not as grating to me as “a phenomena.”
I do have to fess up to one thing though. I’ve always preferred using the word data as a singular noun over a plural. “Data are” just sounds weird to me, no matter how correct I know it to be. Mind you, I just checked and “data” is (are?
) probably an example where incorrect usage has crossed over into widespread acceptance:
From dictionary.com
March 10th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Ibrahim: I cried when I dropped a consonant, until I saw the man who had no vowels.
Hey! You got something to say about the Welsh?
Anyway, I have to say I’m on the side of those who consider it a dumb mispronunciation, and cannot charitably call it an example of language evolving. This isn’t a bastardization of a word from another language, or an easier contraction, or the creation of a new word, or a regional dialect. It’s simply saying the word incorrectly. Because a lot of people do it (usually from hearing someone else do it publicly) should not equate it with, “Oh, well, that’s language for you.”
I’m glad I have never heard anyone do it in my presence, since I think I’d feel obligated to keep asking them what they’re saying. Kind of like the judge in My Cousin Vinny: “Did you just say, ‘The two yoots’?”
Okay, since I’ve already contributed to the length of the thread, another quick story from working in an animal shelter in the southern US. We received a call from a former owner of a dachshund on our answering machine one time, haughtily correcting us that the dog we had “listed as a dash hound, isn’t a dash hound, it’s a pure-bred Weiner Dog.” We kept that message on the machine a long time – made the days nicer.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
For years, I thought segue was se-GYEW.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Sheesh. As much as I usually appreciate the commenters here, I’m going to have to point out that being a speaker of English absolutely does not make you an expert in what is and is not correct; “correctness” is fluid, and varies from dialect to dialect. There is a very large field of study devoted to language — linguistics — and statements like “It’s simply saying the word incorrectly” demonstrate ignorance of this fascinating (social) science.
It’s certainly fine to say that you dislike the “nucular” pronunciation (I know I do). But there’s no objective standard against which you can say “this is wrong.”
My previous comment is being held in the moderation queue (probably for the links), but when it appears I suggest y’all follow the links over to Language Log and educate yourselves a bit about how language works.
March 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Is there not a difference between the way a person speaks amongst his family and peers, and how he speaks in a more formal situation ?
I live in Wales, although I am not Welsh and was not brought up in Wales or speaking Welsh. However I have now lived here long enough to sometimes throw in Welsh words, or using Welsh pronunciation, when speaking English to people I know speak Welsh. That is not something I do when I am speaking to someone who I know does not know welsh or when in a more formal situation such as a job interview even when I know at least some present would understand. Surely narrating a documentry would count as a more formal situation and one in which a person would not use regional variation ?
And whilst I am at it, can we put the old canard about Welsh and vowels to rest ? The Welsh alphabet is not the same as the English one, and W is a vowel in Welsh. As is F, which is pronounced V. Although FF is a seperate letter to F and in pronounced F. All very confusing. And despite having lived here for 10 years, and now speaking some Welsh, I am still not convinced Welsh speakers do not make it up as they go along.
March 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Davis, I could not agree more. Studying linguistics myself, I often find that people generally are very concerned about “proper” and “correct” uses of language, but as you say, and what every linguist will say, there hardly is such a thing as “correct” language-use. There are plenty of variations in language, and as long as the intended meaning of a word or sentence is being communicated – then language has served its function. What is “correct” pronunciation or not then becomes a matter of politics, not language.
March 10th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
It IS a proper pronunciation, according to Merriam Websters online!
I had figured it was even without–after all, I pronounce it that way, and so do a lot of people I know.
It’s no worse than saying “Kernel” for “Colonel”.
Todd
March 10th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
My pet peave is the heinous crime of “I could care less”, instead of “I couldn’t care less”. ARRGGH! If you could care less, then that means that you DO care, more than one might expect! It’s a mistake that completely reverses the meaning of the sentence.
An offence surely worthy of a public flogging!
The Finnish language (my native language) has many dialects which are quite different, and none of those bother me at all – on the contrary, I find them refreshing. I do have my pet peaves in Finnish too though, but they are usually simple, commonly used examples of bad grammar. Then again, in Finnish we don’t have any significant chance for spelling-pronounciation pet peaves, because words are spelt phonetically accurately, exactly as they are pronounced, with very few exceptions.
While on the subject of languages… an interesting thing about Finnish is that we’ve got a cousin-language that’s got a recent enough common ancestor to remain right at the edge of being understandable to a Finn – Estonian is really close. And it’s a strange experience for a Finn to hear Estonian spoken, because it occasionally seems like a purposeful parody of the Finnish language, by someone with a wicked sense of humour (I wonder if Estonians think the same of the Finnish language?).
For example, the word “barber” in Estonian sounds very, very close to how it would sound if you were to say “hair-fluffy-maker” in Finnish.
And the funniest example is probably “wedding day”, which, in Estonian, sounds almost exactly like if you were to say “problem day” in Finnish! 
And if an Estonian guy were to ask a Finnish girl, in Estonian, to sit next to him, he’d probably get a slap on the face… I’ll let your imagination run free with that one. 
March 10th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Todd, Dictionaries record language as it is used, rather than defining correct use of a language. Thus, inclusion of a particular spelling, pronunciation or meaning in a dictionary does not define a variant as ‘proper’, only that it is in common use.
March 10th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I agree with the first part of your statement. But I’m curious, what would you say does define correct usage?
March 10th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Tone, thanks for the support from someone who actually studies linguistics. I only have just enough background in the field to get myself in trouble.
March 10th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Davis, I don’t believe there is any definitive source of correct usage, just degrees of acceptibility, much in line with Tone’s comments. The more formal the situation, whether written or spoken, the less tolerance is generally allowed for deviation from historically accepted standards for English, which are in turn based in the primary root languages of English. There is not an over riding ‘correctness’ but just more or less correct based on the circumstance. This flexibility in the language is why there ends up being a plethora of usage and style guides rather than just the one book of how to do it right every time, and why language usage seems to be such a contested topic; we can all be right and all wrong at the same time.
(Let’s not start on punctuation…please)
March 10th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
One of our foremost “nuclear” scientists was Leo Szilard. When I try to pronounce his name “right” my speech always fails
Szi·lard (zÄl’É™rd, zÉ™-lärd’)= correct pronunciation
The english language has so many silent letters in it. Furthermore, we Americans invented Jazz. So we speak the way we feel at the moment. Ya dig?
March 10th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
“But even Slim Pickens got it right in “Dr. Strangelove†”
I used to live next door to Slim Pickens when I was just a little baby, on a ranch outside of Calgary (pronounced CAL-gree).
“While driving on a rural road in Texas last month, I hit a coyote. I heard it pronounced ky-O-tee and KY-oat. Is there a preferred pronunciation?”
I’ve heard it pronounced ky-O-tee and KY-yoot. Fascinating language, English.
March 11th, 2007 at 12:37 am
Ah, I had mistaken you for a prescriptivist.
I really am curious about the folks who feel there is definitive “correct” and “incorrect” in language, though — what do you consider the source for correctness?
March 11th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Well, BA, you know my stance on this subject, which means that you also know you’re wrong in trying to force language to stay static. Lokul Kuler, man, lokul kuler.
March 11th, 2007 at 4:32 am
Soemitmes i jsut feel glad English is not my first language. When people turns away apporpaite pronouncing, a language is toast. The key in any language is mutual understanding. Welll, the first time I came accross “nucular” I didn’t knew what it was supposed to mean. I can’t even figure how in heavens can “nuclar” be pronounced “nucular”!
It’s funny how some people here claims that mispronoucign a word is cultural diversity, or a sort fo “right” to “not be wrong”. Please! There are many dialects in Spanish, and they’re full of words that trade meanings or just are ununderstandable as they’re based upon native words. There are lots of fun between Spaniards ans the rest of Spanish-speaking epople. And such diversity is highly valored. AND YET, we do have a single academy that makes one single Dictionary and that accounts as standard Spanish so we can still understand each other; and certianly there is one “right” way to pronounce words, which can vary between countries, yet “the right way” remains so that everyone can use it. So the irony and the beauty of the system is, nobody speaks such as the Diccionario de la Real academia de la Lengua Española, yet on the other hand everyoen knows the words in it and so we can understand each other… and have a reference on funny key differences like the meaning of “coger”.
And if you allow me some chauvinism… Spanish is of the few languages in which Shakespeare couldb e translated without any difficulty for the very simpe reason that Spanish is even more detaield and diverse than Shakespeare’s English, and so each one of Shakespeare’s words doe have an accurate (if often obscure) Spansih equivalent. Not too bad after 450 years.
March 11th, 2007 at 6:11 am
Davis: Thank you very much for your informed opinion about what has been done with language in the past. You will take note that I offered mine, and did so by indicating I was on a particular side of the issue.
The rich history of linguistics notwithstanding, there are two important considerations. The first, very simply, is that as language evolves, so may our handling of it. If we wish to standardize a pronunciation of any (or all) words, we can choose to do so. One of the nice things about history is learning from it, not just of it.
Which brings up the second consideration, as Bill Bones hinted at: In spoken language, two different pronunciations are, in effect, two different words. We have enough different words in the english language that are pronounced the same, and need to be distinguished by context – even then, a great many people confuse them when writing them, as can be seen everywhere on the web. In uses where a secondary pronunciation could lead to confusion about the actual meaning (for instance, scientific and medical fields) communication is helped tremendously by being specific.
In addition, we have indeed set standards on the sounds each letter makes, and attempt to teach our children to both speak and spell according to these. This is thrown into confusion when adopting words from other languages which have different rules. Some of this goes with the territory. However, “nuclear” isn’t one of them. To the best of my knowledge, there is no language that uses that letter combination to evoke a second “U” sound, especially between two consonants.
To argue that language is immensely variable and thus pronunciation shouldn’t count is to argue that you should pronounce a word any way that you prefer. This would quickly lead to people never reaching you on the phone and sticking to e-mail, because that is the only way they could possibly understand you (provided, of course, that you haven’t learned to spell on MySpace).
Effective communication does rely on standards, and while these standards may evolve over time, it is also a conscious effort to decide when and where to create and apply them. For a word that has no good reason to pronounce differently, I see no good reason to consider a variant as acceptable.
What I think may have little bearing on what actually happens, of course. Human nature tells us people would rather defend their pronunciation as a legitimate variant than simply say, “Oops, my bad, new-CLEER, that makes a lot more sense.” So yeah, we’re probably stuck with it.
Matt Penfold: This symbol:
is intended to activate your sense of humor, or may be traded in for one if you find you are lacking.
March 11th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Today’s English is very different from the English of Chaucer or even of Shakespeare for that matter. Even reading Jane Austen is a struggle – The latest filming of Pride and Prejudice surgically removed any of Austen’s words that were even remotely difficult for today’s audience.
There are ways and reasons a language evolves. To name a few:
to make difficult words easier to pronounce, to create new words to describe new concepts, by borrowing useful foreign words, to copy some icon of fashion who mispronounces a word, to expand the meaning of an existing word into new contexts.
I can’t get nucular to fit any of these. Is nucular easier to pronounce than new-clear? I personally do not think so – new and clear are well established words that are easily pronounced.
My pet theory is that this originally was a case of someone reading the word and then guessing (incorrectly) how it was pronounced. The “error” then caught on. We are stuck with it. So it goes.
March 11th, 2007 at 6:53 am
When I arrived in Sydney from Far North Queensland in 1958, I stoicly retained my slight regional accent, with its closer to what we imagined as “correct” English, (various Australian States’ Education Departments have different ideas about correctness, and then there are the Catholic School Boards ideas), I soon learned very smartly, and at, to me then, considerable cost, when I directed a cab driver to take me to a certain street in the Sydney CBD. You see, I uttered the “correct” pronunciation for Castlereagh Street. I did not know I was only two blocks from the particular address, but the enterprising cabbie took me on a Cook’s tour of the city, and charged me for it.
I resolved to change my pronunciation immediately to the vernacular. I had been brought up on the short ‘a’ as in ‘hassle’, with which most Americans would be familar, as would some Australians. Here in the State of NSW, it is a long ‘a’ as in ‘car’. There are a few other examples, that usually involve the word “castle”, but after a few days I got used to it.
The strange thing is though, I find it hard to say my original versions now, especially if I have to explain the above to somebody else, it needs a concerted effort to say the ‘wrong’ version.
So, I say, “When in Rome….”
Ivan.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Nobody expects language to stay static. But ignorant mispronunciation is not language evolving, it’s not even sloppy language; it’s just wrong.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:43 am
So if we accept “nucular”, do we also have to take “liberry”? They seem to me to be similar mispronunciations, but I can’t imagine that many here would find the latter acceptable coming from the president, or anyone over the age of eight for that matter.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Randall made the good point of linking to Wikipedia that further points to a bunch of linguistic terms. It’s interesting reading.
In this case metathesis is the issue, I believe. Personally, I don’t care for Bush’s way, but he is far from the only one who does it. I’m more interested in why it happens, as well at etymology.
Incidentally, “brid” or “bryd” in Old English, was not the thing that flys in the sky, but a young chick. “Ciccen” was that fowl we eat. I recalled this while watching a hawk floating over the Galleria here in Houston, which doesn’t seem like good hunting ground – it was riding the “lifts” or as in Old English, “stealing the lifts of air,” so to speak. There are more poetic combo words for specific birds, but somehow the generic “bird” for a thing with feathers evolved whether it’s young, old, flying or not flying, when “fowl” was the generic word.
For those into “air.”
lyftedor [] m (-es/-as) clouds
lyften [] adj of the air, aerial
lyftfæt [] n (-es/-fatu) vessel in the air (moon)
lyftfléogend [] m (-es/-) flier in the air, bird
lyftfloga [] m (-n/-n) flier in the air, dragon
lyftgelác2 [] n (-es/-) flight through the air
lyftgeswenced [] adj driven by the wind
lyfthelm2 [] m (-es/-as) air, mist, cloud
lyftlácende2 [] adj sporting in the air, flying
lyftlic [] adj aerial
lyftsceaða [] m (-n/-n) aerial robber (raven)
lyftwundor [] n (-wundres/-) aerial wonder
lyftwynn2 [] f (-e/-a) joyous air, pleasure in flying
hawk [] hafoc m, hafocfugel m, pyttel m kite (hafoc is hawk, fugel is fowl)
fugel [] m (fugles/fuglas) fowl, bird
So, metathesis has much to do with Old English forms evolving into current forms. I would think Germans and Scandanavians would understand Old English easily. I still like “nu-clear,” though, but that’s the way it goes. :-/
March 11th, 2007 at 8:10 am
I keep trying to post a link to the Old English dictionary, so I expect that I will have three duplicate posts trying to get the link to post. How annoying!
March 11th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Oh, and I forgot to link back to the subject of this blog, namely how one says ‘nuclear’. Those who follow generally the perceived British English, probably everybody else but American English, start the word off with ‘neu-’, the sound is the same as the first syllable in ‘near’, only faster. It seems it goes downhill from there with many variations for the next syllables. Australians find it strange to hear that first ‘noo’, then cringe hearing the mangled ‘cu-lar’.
I have just re-read the above comments, including BA’s original post, and have found not less than 17 variations, at least so far as spelling the sound is concerned. Check ‘em out.
nuke-you-lur
nookular
nuclearh
nuke-you-ler
nuk-you-lur
nucular
nu-cle-ar
nooklee-er
nu-ca-lah-ee-ar
nook-you-ler
nuke-you-lerr
nuke-lee-arr
nuke-lerr
nu-ku-ler
new-cul-ar
new-cleer
new-clear
These are, I think, all that have appeared above, sorry if I missed any.
Re Cuba, I thought everybody said ‘cue-ba’. But I know all Australians say ‘EEE-meyou’ for the big bird on our National Coat of Arms, NOT ‘ee-moo’, another example of ignorance personified.
Ivan.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Melusine, just noticed your comment, and it struck me that the German ‘Luftwaffe’ and Lufthansa are but two related examples, obviously to do with ‘air’ and ‘flight’.
Ivan.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Yes, but Icemith, I use “they” as a singular pronoun because I think the choice of “he” or “she” sounds so ridiculous, as in “If an astronomer wants bigger telescopes then they will have to find public support.” “He” or “she” makes an assumption I don’t like and it sounds awkward. So, it’s not ALWAYS ignorance, but wanting to force language to change.
I’ve “lobbied” for email for years (Phil does that – yay!) and google is now a verb with a lower case g. I find spelling to be more important, and I do agree that we should adhere to SOME structure, naturally, but as Tone mentions, there is no “right” way, just a current established way, which is as subject to change to as theories in science or whatnot. Just saying everything isn’t due to ignorance.
I should correct myself: I say nu-clee-ar, or as Merriam-Webster pronounces it.
See: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuclear
March 11th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Bill Bones, the reason that Spanish as remained consistent is that it hasn’t! As of relatively recent times the Spanish language is administered by the Real Academia Espanola. Since 1713 this elitist body has had an iron grip on all things Spanish, but even they have allowed many changes (some of which tick me off). Just pick up a Spanish etymological dictionary and you’ll see all kinds of sources from the traditional Castillian and Latin to Mozarabic. In fact, Spanish and French probably wouldn’t exist if the Iberians and Gauls hadn’t started corrupting their own languages.
Should I also mention the disappearance of the letters “ch” and “ll” to be replaced by the Anglophonic “c” and “h” as well as “l”and “l” used to create those sounds now . Spanish is supposed to be completely phonetic, letters pronounced as they are written. Then in 1994 the RAE decided that Spanish wasn’t English enough and got rid of two digraph letters and suddenly, the language represents a phonetic rule that never existed in Spanish. Not to mention the widespread acceptance of “ustedes” use in place of “vosotros” in Latin America and the deliberate lisping of “s” sounds by Spaniards that hasn’t carried through to the Latin Americans. Spanish is a poor example of consistency in language, so is any romance language for that matter.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Ibrahim, in one of my posts that didn’t post, I mentioned that here in Texas many Hispanics can’t pronounce my name with the “ch” as in “chaise” or “chartreuse.” I’ll say it over and over and they still pronounce as a ch in “chip.” South of the border they don’t use ch words with the shhhh sound (definitely French do!)
March 11th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Ibrahim: Just out of curiosity,,,You said you were an Arabic speaker. Are you a native born Arabic speaker, or is it a second language for you? I ask because most of the Saudiis I worked with spoke better English than the average Texan. Some even understood puns, a difficult task in any language.
Gary 7
March 11th, 2007 at 9:27 am
BTW, Bush uses so many malapropisms and often mangles language that it’s embarrassing, apart from the “nuclear” matter. Often I think it’s a confidence level issue; when he speaks before business gatherings he doesn’t make the same kind of mistakes, but he’s usually talking about things he does know about. When he talks about things he doesn’t know much about, he makes more mistakes.
Whatever one’s opinion of Tony Blair is, at least he can speak, and under fire in Parliament. There is no way Bush could handle that kind of venue. Absolutely not.
March 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Obviously, I need to stop posting about astronomy and instead make fun of some small point I see on TV. I get a lot more comments that way!
March 11th, 2007 at 10:22 am
LOL BA,
Pointless “arguments” sometimes create more responses than “a thousand points of light” (astronomically speaking of course)
March 11th, 2007 at 10:56 am
I can appreciate a desire to standardize language, but with English (or just about any language with a large number of speakers) that’s a quixotic quest.
No, there are middle positions on this (also see this post). What is correct and incorrect depends a great deal on your dialect, and is determined by the consensus of that dialect’s speakers, which is why I don’t tell people around here they’re wrong when they stress the first syllable of “insurance”. Random pronunciations are likely to be incorrect in any dialect; however, if a “mistake” becomes common enough it tends to become correct in some dialect. I’m pretty sure “nucular” has become standard in some southern dialects, though I haven’t bothered to do the research.
Perhaps, but those standards are certainly not adhered to. I’ve noticed regional accents everywhere I’ve been in the US — my vowels are not the same as a Bostonian’s or a Minnesotan’s, for example.
I think there’s a nice analogy between language evolution and biological evolution here. A word like “nucular” starts as some sort of mutation or error, and gradually becomes widespread throughout a sub-population. Over time, this sub-population drifts into its own dialect and, given enough time, may evolve into a separate language completely.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:57 am
How about ‘libe-ry’ for library and ‘probly’ for probably?
March 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Another one that really gets on my nerves, although I’ve only ever heard it said in New Zealand is ‘ambleeance’ for ambulance.
March 11th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Gary, to answer your question, I’m bilingual. I was born in a tri-lingual family. my father’s Arab (Or Ay-rab down there in Texas
) My mother is Hispanic American from Chile. My Spanish isn’t so good and I think in English, but if meteorite crashes onto my living room floor, you might hear me swear in Arabic.
March 11th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Melusine : not sure your comment at 08:46am was correctly adressed to me, as I do not recall mentioning anything about the misuse of ‘they’. As it happens, I agree with you, but I would avoid that use if possible by re-constructing the sentence.
All of these problem words we are discussing seem to have one thing in common. They are the result of inadequate teaching by the relevant authorities, and come to think of it, maybe our parents. English, with its mixed parentage, has rules and almost invariably, exceptions to those rules.
Though arguably not as noticeable as ‘nuclear’, I throw two more words into the ring for discussion.
‘Performance’, as I know of a former head of a High School of the Performing Arts who always said, ‘Preformance’, and
‘Prescription’, you know that poorly scribbled piece of paper that our doctor provides for our very survival, that we hand over to our pharmacist, hoping desperately that he can decipher it! I myself have to periodically check it in the dictionary, as I get confused and pronounce it, ‘Perscription’. I don’t think writing it out one hundred times would have any effect either.
But one thing though, its not deliberate on the speaker’s part, it is what one is used to, maybe because the mistake was not corrected way back when…
I’ll bet more than a few of us have resorted to dictionaries today to be sure that we are not guilty of miss-spelling words in our comments. We need to be taken seriously. (Pity some words sneak by though. But they really are typos. Really.)
Ivan.
March 11th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Just to throw another spanner in the works of evolving language, I was raised to pronounce lieutenant as “leftenant”, which is the “correct” received pronunciation in English. It grates on my nerves to hear Americans (and many Australians) pronounce it “lootenant”, although that seems to be more in line with its etymology of being related to the term “in lieu”. Who started pronouncing it with the “f” and how did that come to be the preferred form (in England at least)?
To relate it back to nuclear/nukular, while I have to say that I prefer nuclear (I would go so far as to say I consider it correct), perhaps one day the alternative will be received pronunciation and my great, great grandchildren will be wondering where the extra sound came from.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
So, how does ‘aluminum’ and ‘aluminium’ fit in to this discussion? Or do they even fit in at all?
By the way, re: ‘ambleeance’… I’ve heard young children mispronounce ‘ambulance’ that way, and found it rather amusing. Even more amusing is when I try to gently correct them, they come up with even more convoluted mispronunciations: “I can’t say ‘amble-yunce’… I mean ‘ambly-yoonce’… AUGH!”
March 11th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Well CR, here in Atlanta “Ambalances” take people to the hospital. As for Aluminum, it’s easy. IUPAC accepts both, but prefers “aluminium”.
March 11th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Icemith, you didn’t say anything about “they” – I just used that as an example of something others might perceive as “ignorance,” when in fact it’s deliberate.
Davis, posted a very good link that discusses the extremes of descriptivist and prescriptivist approaches to language. Thanks, Davis! I have books where experts disagree, and in creative writing, an author often breaks the rules on purpose, but I think a middle ground between one extreme and the other is where I like to be.
I try not needle people’s syntax, because I know mine is often screwy, but I definitely think spelling is very important as is the correct use of apostrophes. “Effect” and “affect” are Merriam-Webster’s most looked up words, btw, month after month. For years I spelled “embarrassed” with one r…not a mistake that would prevent understanding, but it was still wrong.
While I’m babbling, I’m snobby about non-British, non-Australian, non-Canadian people using British spellings, but NOT for the reason that Conservapedia doesn’t like it! It’s not at all related to nationalism in any way, but simply pretentiousness. I like being able to recognize a writer as schooled in the Queen’s english – it makes no sense for me to use “colour” when I was schooled in US public schools. Except for the color “grey.” (Crayola did that to me.) But again, an American using Britishisms doesn’t prevent understanding – I just don’t know why they do it.
Phil’s comment is funny. But being that people are posting here from all over the world, and that some people are self-conscious of how they write (and typos), it’s an interesting subject. Also, the Internet has the power to propagate errors and usage more so than in the past. There’s flexibility in language, and I don’t want language homogenized, but when it comes to math and the metric system, I think we should be globally in sync. I’m all for US scientists weaning us off our feet, as painful as that may be.
March 11th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Melusine, I take your point. My selection of the word ‘ignorance’, earlier, was not meant to be disparaging. I used it in the sense of not knowing, not being aware of. That is something our Educators can take the blame for, but then, if some people don’t want to learn, who can really force them?
I would try to do the right and accepted thing, and hope it rubs off on others. It’s called ’setting a good example’. But then I am aware that sometimes I do stumble, especially after I have submitted my efforts, and then I kick myself. I go to the dunce’s corner.
I do appreciate Melusine’s and other’s gentle corrections. Well mostly anyway.
Ivan.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:39 am
Ok, “others’”, just in case, if I had offended more than one other.
Ivan.
March 12th, 2007 at 2:45 am
“It’s certainly fine to say that you dislike the “nucular†pronunciation (I know I do). But there’s no objective standard against which you can say “this is wrong.”
I am normally the one taking this position in this kind of argument, castigating idiots who think their dialect is the correct one. But that is not what is happening in this case. What is happening is some people, when they first hear the word “nuclear”, mishear it and start using it themselves as “nucular”. That *is* an objective error, and there’s nothing wrong with correcting it.
March 12th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Icemith, I do understand that “ignorant” is a word like “critical,” which is used nonjudgmentally AND derisively. “I am a critical person” does not necessarily mean that I am a harsh judger of all things (though I could be), but that I “exercise careful and judicious evaluation.” So, we’re on the same page.
Still, Bush’s nuke-you-lur is not of ignorance – certainly he’s heard everybody make fun of him, yet that does not make him change the way he says it. And he could practice it over and over until it’s drilled in his head. He doesn’t want to.
I remember when I was about seven years old my mother chuckled when she figured out that I was trying to say Goethe. I had seen her books and so I pronounced it phonetically GO-eth. It took her a while to figure out what I was asking her. Heck, it’s not like Goethe was taught in 3rd grade! The lovely thing about the Internet is that now everybody can hear the words pronounced like those talking toys we had as kids; it’s especially helpful with Latin and foreign words. Goethe is in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Groovy.
Astronomical terms are helpful to look up online; I still have my way of saying Pleiades and have to catch myself and say it right, simply because I said it wrong for so long. No astronomers in my family!
March 12th, 2007 at 6:54 am
If you want a language with only one correct dialect, choose Latin.
If you can’t stand regionalisms, I would suggest poking your eardrums out, as that is the only way you will ever be free of them.
March 12th, 2007 at 7:06 am
I loved the episode of FutureWeapons where he holds a device up to the camera and breathlessly tells us, “This thing is so classified, I can’t even tell you its name.” But the program info from my cable provider clearly identified it as a BootBanger. (Awesome device, by the way, Google it.) The host is quite the goob, but to quote The Joker, “Oh, those wonderful toys.”
March 12th, 2007 at 7:25 am
“It’s certainly fine to say that you dislike the “nucular†pronunciation (I know I do). But there’s no objective standard against which you can say “this is wrong.â€
There is no context I am aware of the English language where “L” is pronounced as “U.”
March 12th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Whether or not a particular mispronunciation is a common dialect, in a work expressly designed to educate we should expect standards of pronunciation that retain the capacity of the world to self-define. I also expect scientific journal articles to spell their terms of art correctly, regardless of any local variation in the English language.
Anything less is just unprofessional.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Michael H said:
> I can’t get nucular to fit any of these. Is nucular easier to pronounce than new-clear? I personally do not think so – new and clear are well established words that are easily pronounced.
Your perception is mistaken. Those linguist sites talk explicitly about the processes that make the letter combinations difficult to speak.
Even “clear” is not simple. Start with the “c-l” combination. There is an innate tendency to add a schwa between the consonant sounds, so the combo is pronounced kuhl. That tendency is exaggerated in some dialects. Add to that the dual vowel combo – “e-a” leading into the “r”. Some dialects dipthong the vowels and you get eer, while others give ee ar. So is the word kleer, klee’ ar, kuh leer’, or kuh lee’ ar?
Next try to say “new clear”. The break in the syllables reads as a pause between the words, even when trying to say it as “nuclear”. The “u” sound does not flow easily into the “kl” sound. Running all these factors together and you flow from new’ klee er to new’ kuh lee er to new’ kuh ler to finally new’ kyu ler.
This process is aided by regional vocal patterns, such as the one that led Kennedy to pronounce it “Cuber” or the popular dropping of the “g” off “ing”. These are ingrained vocal patterns learned at the earliest stages of language development in childhood, and they follow one throughout life. They are difficult to break. Think of a North Dakotan pronouncing “out and about”. Most of the rest of us hear them say it “oot and aboot”. Yet I’ve had someone argue there’s a distinct difference betwee the way they say “a boot” and “about”. Not that anyone not from there can hear it.
Then there’s the symmetry with words such as “molecular” and “angular” and “cellular”. That pattern of pronunciation aids the mishearing of the word, and makes the new “nucular” version sound okay. Plus, what is the short form of the word? “Nuke”. Not “nukle” or “nuklee”.
In short, yes, “nukyular” is easier to say for a large number of English speakers.
March 12th, 2007 at 10:46 am
To quote Corey:
To retain the meaning, the word “Nucleus†would have to evolve simultaneously into “Nuke-you-luss†so that the relationship would be preserved.
In the south, we are very progressive. This change has been in effect for years, so we are logically consistant in pronouncing it Nuke-you-ler.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:58 am
I remember an old science film where the British narrator pronounced “aluminum” as ah-loo-min-E-um. Blech.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:06 am
sirjonsnow, you said at 06:58am,
Did you not notice that the spelling of the element whose symbol is ‘Al’, is ‘A-l-u-m-i-n-i-u-m’, at least in British English (now that has to be tautology), so how would you expect a British narrator to pronounce it?
The rest of the English speaking world spells it with the second ‘i’, and we all pronounce it accordingly. I think your spelled version of the narrator’s effort would be slightly wrong too. I would think ‘al-you-min-ee-um’, or if an older or high society person, ‘ahl-you-min-ee-um’, but both with the stress on the ‘min’ syllable.
A check of three dictionaries I have handy, all give the two versions for the metal in question, so they are both right. Regionalism again I guess. I also checked a German-English Dictionary and it is spelled with the second ‘i’ as well. I wonder how it is in other languages?
Strangely though, we all seem to say ‘a-loom-in-a’ for the oxide found in bauxite from which Aluminium is produced.
Ivan.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:16 am
sirjonsnow, you said at 06:58am,
‘I remember an old science film where the British narrator pronounced “aluminum†as ah-loo-min-E-um. Blech.’
Did you not notice that the spelling of the element whose symbol is ‘Al’, is ‘A-l-u-m-i-n-i-u-m’, at least in British English (now that has to be tautology), so how would you expect a British narrator to pronounce it?
The rest of the English speaking world spells it with the second ‘i’, and we all pronounce it accordingly. I think your spelled version of the narrator’s effort would be slightly wrong too. I would think ‘al-you-min-ee-um’, or if an older or high society person, ‘ahl-you-min-ee-um’, but both with the stress on the ‘min’ syllable.
A check of three dictionaries I have handy, all give the two versions for the metal in question, so they are both right. Regionalism again I guess. I also checked a German-English Dictionary and it is spelled with the second ‘i’ as well. I wonder how it is in other languages?
Strangely though, we all seem to say ‘a-loom-in-a’ for the oxide found in bauxite from which Aluminium is produced.
Ivan.
March 13th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Don’t know why the first post omitted the quote, so sorry for having to send it again, but I removed a couple of arrows first, and it worked.
Ivan.
March 13th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Hey, there’s an echo in here! (I brought up ‘aluminum’ vs ‘aluminium’ on March 11th. I used to find the British pronunciation baffling as well, until I realised it’s actually spelled that way, and we Americans have had it ‘wrong’–er different–all this time.)
March 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Aluminum vs Aluminium is an old battle. Alum was the source, and when trying to name the elemental metal, there were two approaches taken. Aluminum was taken to be similar to platinum and molybdenum. Aluminium was taken to be similar to sodium, calcuim, potassium, etc. Ergo, the British established one official spelling and pronunciation, the Americans another. This has become accepted as a regional distinction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum
March 13th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
To further illustrate that point, my 20-year old copy of Webster’s New World Dictionary (2nd College Edition) lists ‘aluminium’ as the British variant of ‘aluminum.’
March 13th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
We live and learn. (But one never knows if one never asks – or, for those who prefer – ya never learn if ya don’t ask.)
Ivan.
March 19th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
In case anyone happens upon this thread again, this new book by Seth Lerer looks readable for all. My Old English professor would read Old English (pre-Beowulf) and compare it to modern rap (as far as the rhythm), and that was over 15 years ago. I’ve never read anything by this author, but his credentials look good, and from what it sounds like, he’s probably right on the money. I certainly will buy it, but it’s still on pre-order. Read the descreption.