[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Cómo se dice ther[o]pod y synapsid e

" not a connection - just that the mispronounciation "new killer" is a
functional name that makes sense (at all)...unlike another
mispronounciation I've heard: "nu kea lurrr"."

I've never heard anybody attempt to pronounce "nuclear" in a way that
would convey "new killer," especially since the intonation would have
be completely different for that to make any sense conversationally.
I've heard "nookyoolar" and very rarely "nuke'lar," but never anything
like "newkiller."

So the idea of a Pentagon connection between "nuclear" and the
capabilities of the device does still strike me as suspect . . . in
part because it's also extremely contrived in American English -
almost as contrived as if one were to use "rifle" to convey "full of
rye" in some context or other.


"Well, sure, Latinate names are phonetic, if you pronounce them in Latin!"

Not what I mean. "Nukular" requires the removal of one consonant sound
("cl") and the addition of another vowel sound (a second "u"). This is
the equivalent of saying "Deinonycuhus" or "Dipulodocus." So I was
suggesting that, at least for scientific names, we don't generally
have the problem of people dropping and replacing syllables
willy-nilly: people say only what's really there, with only the
interpretation of *existing* syllables being variable.