From today's Word-Spy mailing list:
"In the end, language changes because of the people who use it, not by appealing to any external factor, like spelling or history. People criticizing "NOO-kyuh-luhr" should also condemn "CUMF-ter-bull," yet they don't. Merriam-Webster's form letter about "nuclear" spends only two sentences discussing the word itself: most of the letter is an explanation of why spelling is not a valid basis for determining pronunciation. …In other words, "NOO-kyuh-luhr" is a lost cause, and no amount of pleading on the grounds of technical context or historical novelty can expunge its use."
—Jesse Sheidlower, American lexicographer, The New York Times, October 13, 2002
And I really liked bitching about that one, too! (Not that I'm going to let the Pres off the hook for it… I'll just have to acknowledge that I'm simply whining to hear myself whine.)
"In the end, language changes because of the people who use it, not by appealing to any external factor, like spelling or history. People criticizing "NOO-kyuh-luhr" should also condemn "CUMF-ter-bull," yet they don't. Merriam-Webster's form letter about "nuclear" spends only two sentences discussing the word itself: most of the letter is an explanation of why spelling is not a valid basis for determining pronunciation. …In other words, "NOO-kyuh-luhr" is a lost cause, and no amount of pleading on the grounds of technical context or historical novelty can expunge its use."
—Jesse Sheidlower, American lexicographer, The New York Times, October 13, 2002
And I really liked bitching about that one, too! (Not that I'm going to let the Pres off the hook for it… I'll just have to acknowledge that I'm simply whining to hear myself whine.)
Comments