Talk:nuclear

Pronunciation Controversy

Controversy? What controversy? Are we nuts? Just because some presidents and "educated" professionals can't pronounce the word correctly doesn't make it so! I propose that the nu-ky&-l&r mispronunciation be removed, and only be mentioned in a derisive footnote, if at all. I'm not a native English speaker. English is a third language for me, but I have no trouble at all saying /ˈnuklɛɚ/ or /ˈnukliɚ/. Oh, yes, I am an educated professional. Hydrargyrum 12:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Prescriptively, the pronunciation is frowned on. Descriptively, it is common. -O^O

The president doesn't "mispronounce" the word, he purposely prounounces it that way because thats the vernacular of the word for certain places, in particular some of the southern states, who put him into office in the first place. So basically hes trying to convey this "good ole' boy" gimmick to gain support (eventhough hes pretty much an aristocrat from marthas vinyard) and this pronunciation of the word nuclear is just a small part of that.

Look at the way it's written. English may not be written phonetically, but the spelling does tend to provide some hint. Nuclear does not have a vowel between the c and the l. It's just that simple. --LakeHMM 00:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To avoid your flame entirely

Clicking on the bartleby link provided some interesting text, "Note that the stigmatized variant can also occur in the word nucleus." If we're going to be citing sources, we should at least keep them consistent with the entry. I'd move to delete the bartleby link, or change the statement, "is derived from the word nucleus about which there is no debate regarding pronunciation." on the page.

If you remove references, you'll likely be facing a block from editing Wiktionary, for some time. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Connel MacKenzie, if that's your attitude, then there's something seriously wrong. References should safely be able to be removed if they are not relevant to the article, if they have been misrepresented, and in various other circumstances.

Don't agree with my assertion? Then maybe I'll add a spurious reference to this article and — by your logic — you'll be powerless to remove it without getting yourself blocked from Wiktionary.

Agree with my assertion? Then be more precise in your own statements!

—DIV (137.111.13.4 03:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC))

I hope you realize that you're responding to a comment posted 15 years ago by someone who hasn't been active here for a decade. You might as well argue with a tree. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed text

This was removed from the main entry. Significant discussion is required before restoring it. --Connel MacKenzie 16:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation Controversy

Though the pronunciation /nukjəlɚ/ has been portrayed as the subject of controversy, there is no valid etymological basis for this pronunciation, regardless of usage, prominent or otherwise.

Merriam-Webster's recognition of /nukjəlɚ/ as a valid pronunciation further calls into question their standing as a dependable reference, they having scored dead last in the Fiske Ranking of College Dictionaries (FRCD), examples of which include the following:

• accidently as a valid spelling of accidentally
• anyways as a valid spelling of anyway
• publically as a valid spelling of publicly
• tho as a valid spelling of though
• flaunt as having the same meaning as flout
• fortuitous as having the same meaning as fortunate
• infer as having the same meaning as imply

Unclear speculation regarding common and uncommon vowel clusters does not bear mention except perhaps as an example of rationalization.

Helpful source on the alternative pronunciation

This article explains that the pronunciation "nucular" has staying power because of the similarity to the endings of particular, muscular, and other words. English speakers are preprogrammed to use that ending, if not for this word. -- econterms (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)