Noocular
January 29, 2003
I’ve seen a lot of people pick on Bush today for his mispronunciation of the word “Nuclear.” The man is a boob, OK? A dangerous, annoying, anti-Constitution Boob. But I tend to mispronounce this word myself.
Honestly, so many people get so nuts over the pronunciation of this word I can’t usually remember which one is correct. I do that over-correction thing: “I think the correct pronunciation is noo-clee-arr, but I’m always wrong so it must be nook-you-lar.”
It’s an easy mistake to make, actually, because the mouth-shapes required for correct pronunciation of this word are unfamiliar. Dig the usage note from American Heritage Dictionary.
Often word pronunciation changes based on how convenient it is to get your teeth, tongue, and lips in the right position quickly. Take, for example, the word “tree.” If you say it slowly, pronouncing carefully each letter, the tip of your tounge hits the roof of your mouth for the “t” while the rest of your tongue pulls back towards your lower jaw. For the “r” the tongue curls up against the roof of the mouth and the tip of the tongue hits below the gumline on the back teeth.
That’s a lot of moving about. When you say “tree” quickly, this mouth shapes frequently get simplifed. The ‘T’ shape is never actually made. Instead, you put your tongue in position for the “r” and make a very short abreviated “Ch” sound. “Chree.”
Spoken language is full of these kinds of compromises between speed of speech and correct pronunciation. A good way to make people think you are being sarcastic or hostile is to carefully pronounce each word. Try it some time — see how many people get irritated. (I recommend doing this exercise during your next annual performance review.)
So, I think Bush’s habitual mispronunciation of “nuclear” is perfectly understandable. The word does requires some gymnastics to say correctly.
Sadly, I have no such handy rationalization for “sublibible.”
Posted in Archived Unsorted
content rss
January 30th, 2003 at 8:39 am
Criticizing the way Bush speaks (although he is often remarkably inept at stringing words together, often revealing himself as a man woefully underqualified for his position) distracts us from criticizing (or even just closely examining) the man’s policies and politics.
It’s easy to make jokes about his malapropisms and mispronouciations. Just ask Jay Leno. It’s quite another matter to intelligently discuss what the man *does* and what that means for the country.
January 31st, 2003 at 11:07 am
Fred’s important point notwithstanding, the correct pronunciation of nuclear is, in fact “new-clee-ar,” as it describes a relation to the atomic nucleus (”new-clee-us”) which, strangely, most people who say “new-kya-lar” pronounce just fine.
January 31st, 2003 at 11:09 am
Actually a better way to phoneticize mis-pronunciation of “nuclear” is “nuke-ya-ler” which is perhaps a corruption of “nuke ya later,” the colloquial midwestern fare-thee-ill.
January 31st, 2003 at 11:26 am
It’s not really all that strange. “ee-ar” is generally a one syllable dipthong, (”clear”,”ear”,”near”,”fear”,”gear”) not two distinct vowel sounds. “ee-us” is not a very common sound, but the transition from “ee” to “us” is a lot easier than pronouncing the common dipthong “ea” as two distinct vowel sounds — the back of the tongue just moves down a bit to open the throat.
This is not to say that you are wrong about which pronunciation is correct. But if I had to lay money on it, I’d say that over the next hundred years or so the pronunciation of this word is going to shift more and more to Resident Bush’s way of speaking. Language commonly does this — it’s why we don’t pronounce terminal e’s and some k’s make no sound at all. “kuh-ney-fee” was probably, at one time, the preferred pronunciation of “knife.”
January 31st, 2003 at 11:27 am
“‘ee-ar’ is generally a one syllable dipthong”
I mean, of course, that ‘ee-ar’ is generally one syllable.
January 31st, 2003 at 11:29 am
Oh, and “dipthong” = “diphthong.” (”Diffthong?”)