My previous entry saw me attempting sarcasm over America’s inability to pronounce “nuclear.” Then lalaland informs me that it’s actually already been done by feckin’ Merriam-Webster. Listen closely.
Up next, I guess, M-W adjusts their product to account for “aks,” “artic,” “bidniss,” and a host of other alternativistic pronouncifications.
testing 
………….
Well, “akse” is actually how that word was pronounced and spelled 500-800 years ago. There were even even writings decrying the “ignorant” pronounciation of “ask”.
So, it seems that one oscillates between two pronounciations once every millenia. Futurama unintentionally got it right.
But, “nukeyoular” … that’s a result of calling nuclear weapons, “nukes” during the Cold War. Since nobody’s saying “nukeyoulus” for nucleus, and every biologist still says, “nulceotides,” and “nucleic” (not “nuke-you-low-tides” and “nuke-you-leic”), the mispronounciation of “nuclear” will always sound off.
At least, to those of us with more than a 200 word vocabulary.
THAT is unbelievable!
It’s all a nationwide conspiracy to make GW look less illiterate.
Aaaugh! Typo!
I meant to say, 20000 word vocabulary. Which, IIRC, is the minimum number of words one needs in order to function in English.
:
:
:
Or, wait… is that the number for English, or German?
:grumbles: I think 2000 is the base-minimum vocab for being functional in German. I think English is higher, but I don’t remember by how much.
So, :blush: the idea on the last sentence of my comment was to say, “At least, to those of us with more than the bare-minimum vocabulary needed for basic functionality in English.”
But I blundered it.