Listen

[prog]

[NOOK-yoo-lur] is a perfectly fine way to pronounce the word. It is a legitimate variant and in fact how I learned to say it, growing up. If you think that getting snarky over this is the way to fight a culture war, then you personify everything that's wrong with this side. Shape up and focus

Comments

[lediva.livejournal.com]

Although in that very article, the author points out that he's a "nuclear all the way" person.

I dunno, I'm the same way. I can totally understand differences in vowel pronounciation, etc. But there's only one U in the word, and it's in the first syllable.

But I used to be a big spelling bee geek, so I suppose this comes from that.

[keimel.livejournal.com]

And what of getting snarky over someone elses snarky?

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's a cliche (and a cheap shot) to pick on that particular thing, and I agree that people learn to pronounce things differently and that "correct" pronunciation is subjective. But I also think "perfectly fine" is a bit too strong. "Nucular" (like "y'all" or "ain't") has a particular connotation of class and/or education, regardless of whether it's "legitimate" or not—it's not the same as "envelope" or "aunt" which have distinct pronunciations that are pretty much vestigial. Some people train themselves to avoid saying it in order to avoid this connotation, others don't, and still others choose to say it as a deliberate affectation. I think all three of these choices (and probably some gray areas in between) are indications of one's character, even if fairly insignificant or irrelevant indications.

I also think there's a lot more wrong with this side than snarkiness. But that's a different topic.

[radiotelescope.livejournal.com]

"Nukular" is wrong, and so are you.

[doctor-atomic.livejournal.com]

While it certainly is an over-used source of ridicule, nucular is just plain wrong, and you'd think the president of the United States could make some effort to correct himself.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

How, how, HOW could anyone with the appropriate authority have possibly decided that is a legitimate variant pronunciation? That's so depressing.

[radtea.livejournal.com]

Pronunciation varies. By my standards a good 20% of common English words are routinely mispronounced in the U.S., even in the north, and I once bought gas in Tennessee and could barely understand the kid at the counter, who was using dialect pronunciations that were at least as far from what I'd like to think of as "standard" English as the pronunciations of my Scotish friends and relatives are.

And for the record, I used to pronounce it nuke-u-lar too, and only changed during the course of taking a Ph.D. in the subject.

Nukular isn't the problem

[taskboy3000.livejournal.com]

What bugs me is when that word is used in a sentence like:

«Ah want to see the US develop more bunker-bustin' nukular weapons.»

Mispronunications are the very least of Mr. Bush's offences. And the least actionable.

nucleus?

[(Anonymous)]

Do you say "nook-yoo-lus" also?

It's more than a trivial mis-use of the language

[grr-plus1.livejournal.com]

Bush has the power and authority to destroy the world using "nukular" bombs.

Any normal person given that level of responsibility might be bothered to learn how to pronounce nuclear. It's somewhat analogous to the doctor who holds your life in his hands saying "Nurse, pass me that cutty thing there." Because it's a life or death issue it's no longer cute.

That said, I've been less annoyed by GW's use of "nukular". It was much worse when Reagon used it, smack in the middle of the cold war at the same time as his administration refused to rule out making a first strike against the USSR. I've never been seriously worried that GW was going to start nuclear WWIII- although, who knows, maybe he's wacky enough to think it's his responsibility to bring on the End Times with nukes.