Ivan.

Ivan.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anything less is just unprofessional.

There is no context I am aware of the English language where “L” is pronounced as “U.”

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.

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!

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.

Ivan.

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.

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.

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!”

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.

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.