Say it ain't so! "And no, "nucular" is not a sign of ignorance. This reversal of vowel-like consonants (nuk-l'-yer -> nuk-y'-ler) is common in the world's languages, and is no more illiterate than pronouncing "iron" the way most Americans do, as "eye-yern" instead of "eye-ren."" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04pinker.html Stephen had pointed out earlier in the article this pithy observation: "The second myth about Ms. Palin is that her accent is contrived, or that it reveals laziness or ignorance on her part. Certainly, Ms. Palin cranked the folksiness dial to 11 during the debate: she dropped more g's, reverted to "nucular" after being teleprompted during the Republican National Convention to pronounce it "new-clear," and salted her speech with cutesy near profanities like "darn," "heck" and "doggone." But it's the "nucular" affirmation I find most objectionable. (Maybe it's because I'm from Ohio that I wasn't that turned off by her dropping of those g's.) I hereby stand up and declare that I disagree with Stephen Pinker. Just because it's common, does that mean it's not illiterate? Will we soon have to succumb to "I could care less" when the speaker obviously means, "I COULDN'T care less?" I'll try to pretend that I'm able to be objective about Caribou Barbie (oops.just lost my objectivity creds, didn't I?), but honestly, do we have to continue to put up with "nucular"? Beth Benoit Granite State College New Hampshire
--- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
