Conference thebay::joyoflex

About half the people I know pronounce "Realtor(r)" as "reel-a-ter."

Bugs the hell otua me.

-dick

    Re: .0
    
    When you got them, you can call them whatever you like.

    I had heard that 'nucular' made it in the dictionary because of
    Eisenhower, but I just checked my dictionary and it isn't there.  Has
    anyone else heard the Eisenhower story?
    
    Eric
    
    P.S.  This reference to Eisenhower and his English are in no way meant
    to libel Eisenhower, his family, the U.S. government and all affiliated
    branches, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the
    Marines, John Prine, nor the Republican party. This reference is also
    not intended to criticize or praise Eisenhower's administration. 
    Thank you in advance for understanding that I simply heard a story and
    I am searching for verification.
         

>            <<< Note 970.3 by DECWET::GETSINGER "Eric Getsinger" >>>
>
>    P.S.  This reference to Eisenhower and his English are in no way meant
>    to libel Eisenhower, his family, the U.S. government and all affiliated
>    branches, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the
>    Marines, John Prine, nor the Republican party. This reference is also
>    not intended to criticize or praise Eisenhower's administration. 
>    Thank you in advance for understanding that I simply heard a story and
>    I am searching for verification.
>         

    getting a bit touchy, aren't we?
    

    If Digital's regulations prohibited libel, I would personally have no
    complaint.  The regulations prohibit true statements as well.  We cannot
    even quote one of George Bush's statements about one of his campaign
    promises, and I think we cannot report on Eisenhower's English.
    (Except, of course, by ignoring the rules.)
    
    Of course, we could try flooding Glover's mailbox.  But then he'd get
    a new secret mailbox and ignore ordinary employees.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    Re: .5 (Diamond)

    >> The regulations prohibit true statements as well.  We cannot
    >> even quote one of George Bush's statements about one of his campaign
    >> promises, and I think we cannot report on Eisenhower's English.
    >> (Except, of course, by ignoring the rules.)

    I don't believe the above is true.  It is perfectly acceptable to quote
    George's campaign promises, such as:

    	"Read my lips; no new taxes!"

    and then comment that there have been some new Federal taxes. What
    would *not* be appropriate would be to say that George was lying even
    if it were true.  It is perfectly reasonable to state the above facts
    and let the readership draw their own conclusions. Or did you have some
    other campaign promise in mind?  Send me an exact quote, with
    reference,  and I'll post it myself.

    As far as Eisenhower's English is concerned, he frequently spoke in a
    stream-of-consciousness manner consisting of phrases and words that
    could not be parsed into standard sentences.

    I hereby give permission for this note to be forwarded in its entirely
    to anybody inside Digital, including Personnel for a ruling on its
    "legality" under PP&P.

    Tom Eggers

    I am finding Mr. Diamond's tactics on noting policy becoming very
    tedious.  It is my belief he is not choosing good notes to illustrate
    his objections to the policy.  The result is likely to be equivalent to
    crying wolf.
    
    I request that he take his battle to some conference in which I don't
    participate.

.5>    Of course, we could try flooding Glover's mailbox.

Are you are offering that as an alternative to your present tactic of flooding
this conference?  If so, I support the suggestion.

You also might try what is suggested in the Personal Name field of .4.  Based
on my knowledge of Personnel, it may be no less productive than any other
tactic.

    It was not my intention to flood the conference.  When I saw a new note
    that Sims and Glover say they prohibit, I pointed it out.  When I didn't
    see such a new note, I didn't start anything.  In fact, the first complaint
    that I ever saw about unacceptable notes was written by someone else,
    targeted AT me as well as some others, after we wrote about Saddam Hussein.
    
    (It doesn't matter how many Iraqis hate the guy; Digital's management
    works to protect his name.)
    
    >It is perfectly acceptable to quote George's campaign promises,
    
    I think that is usually true.
    
    >What would *not* be appropriate would be to say that George was lying
    >even if it were true.
    
    I think that it would not be acceptable to quote George's later
    statement ABOUT that campaign promise, even though this would also
    just be a quote.  [Appropriate yes, acceptable no.]
    
    When I informed Glover by e-mail about the contents of some old notes,
    he specifically warned me that my e-mail violated the regulations and
    that I must stop.  So if a note does violate the policy, we are not
    allowed to forward it to Glover.
    
    I still do not wish to flood the conference.  If everyone feels that
    it is best to just ignore the regulations, I think that everyone should
    inform Sims and Glover.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    Re: .-1

    You are having a problem with the Glover and Sims policy that I have
    also seen and have decided to simply ignore.  You are choosing not only
    to not ignore it but to repeatedly inflict the controversy on other
    noters in multiple notes conferences.

    I agree that the stated policy is unreasonable, but I disagree with the
    tactics you are using to change it. I don't believe your tactics will
    have any positive effect.  They will simply annoy other noters.  I am
    therefore politely requesting that you find some other tactics which
    might be more effective and which are less visible to the majority of
    noters.

Maybe, if we ignore his notes on this topic, Mr Diamond will see that
he's wasting his time and ours with his continued ranting in this file.

May we return to the topic of "nucular bombs, please?"

    When I started this topic, I had no idea it would degenerate into some
    kind of silly political wrangling about some subject which, I as
    understand it, is completely out of context.
    
    Please cease and desist, or I will withdraw my base note.
    
    Ray Thackeray

    Basenote withdrawal prevention:
    
                              -< The Joy of Lex >-
================================================================================
Note 970.0                       Nucular bombs!                       12 replies
CALS::THACKERAY                                      12 lines  28-MAY-1992 11:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I was one of the thousand or so poor souls who had the misfortune to
    suffer through Casper Weinberger's monologue at DECworld a couple of
    weeks ago; believe me when I tell you that this retired U.S. Secretary
    for Defence committed the grave error of diminishing his credibility by
    continually referring to "nucular" power, "nucular" weapons and
    "nucular" capability.
    
    I think he is uncular on the concept.
    
    Tally-ho,
    
    Ray

    I thought about reposting my note, but I went one step further and
    dragged out a dictionary (my Third International takes up too much
    room, so I had to visit another office).  Here is what Webster's
    Collegiate has to say:
    
    	Usage: Though disapproved by many, pronunciations ending in
    	-ky(schwa)-l(schwa)r have been found in widespread use among
        educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors,
        congressmen, U.S. cabinet members and at least one U.S. president
    	and one vice president.  While most common in the U.S., these
    	pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian
    	speakers.         

    There used to be another mispronunciation which I found irritating. 
    Namely:
    
    	Transitor     instead of       transistor
                                             ^
    Eventually people got it right and it's now many years since I heard it
    mispronounced.
    
    I am surprised that CW should mispronounce 'nuclear' since he should
    have been thoroughly familiar with both its spelling and
    pronounciation.
    
    
    Much worse than either of these was an incident I witnessed in a
    tailors shop MANY years ago.  An acquaintance of mine with the surname
    of Hindley had just been measured for a very expensive suit.  The way
    he pronounced his name was with the first syllable rhyming with
    'binned'.  Anyway the tailor then started the accompanying paperwork.
    
    Tailor: "May I ask your name?"
    Client: "Hindley"
    Tailor: "No, that's pronounced Hindley"
    	pronouncing the first syllable to rhyme with 'kind'
    
    The argument developed a little further before the order was cancelled.
    
    Nick

    How about "Feb-you-ary"???  Heard from Tom Gibb on NPR, among countless
    others.

    Speaking of NPR, has anyone else noticed that the announcers pronounce
    president as prezdent?  Makes me nuts!  (Or, to coin a verb, obnocts
    the heck out of me.)
    
    And, while I'm on a rant, how many people realize that the word exit
    has no g's in it?  Neither does example. And envelope doesn't begin with 
    an o.
    
    ok.  I'm done.
    
    
    
    

    No Gs in luxury, either...
    
    Leslie

    re: No 'g' in words containing 'x'
    
    I'm confused.  You mean, perhaps, 'g' as opposed to 'k' as part of the
    'ks' sound (would that be an affricate?).  I've never heard anyone
    pronounce 'exit' as 'essit' (not from a native English speaker,
    anyway).
    
    On the other hand, I have heard native English speakers put a 'k'
    after '-ing.'  (English, not American.)
    
    --Simon
    

    Note .18 wants "exit" to be prounounced "eksit" and not "egzit".
    
    My OED shows only "eksit".
    
    My 1960 American Heritage lists both "eksit" and "egzit".

    G'day,
    
      wrt envelope, one puts a letter in an 'onvelope' but a Blob envelopes
    one... n'est-ce pas?
    
    
    My private pet hate right now is
    
    
    ASK pronounced arks
    
    as in
    
    I arksed him if it were true....
    
    
    
    shudder
    
    
    
    derek
    

    	Having lived in France for ten years I might accidentaly use a
    French pronunciation for envelope.
    
    	Then there's the shaggy dog story that I can't bear to type in
    full, about the terrible cinema fire in South-west France. Everyone was
    trampled to death because all the Basques were in one exit.

    >> ... the terrible cinema fire in South-west France. Everyone was
    trampled to death because all the Basques were in one exit.
    
    I hate to ask these questions because I'm usually embarrassed by the
    answer, but I'll ask anyway:
    
    I don't get it.  I speak only standard American.  Would somebody please
    explain? 

    >> ... the terrible cinema fire in South-west France. Everyone was
    trampled to death because all the Basques were in one exit.
    
	eggs in one basket

	Re: .21   
    
>>	 ... a Blob envelopes one ....

	Surely a Blob envelops one?

	I can't check in a proper dictionary because I am visiting
	the US.  :-)

	Jim

    Ahhhh!  Ha!  Ha!  Ha!  Ha!  Ha!
    
    		Eggs in one basket!
    		Basques in one egzit!
    
    Thanks.  I should have been able to figure it out.

re .25

>	I can't check in a proper dictionary because I am visiting
>	the US.  :-)

Nonsense.  I'm sure there'll be a proper dictionary in any big city
"libary." :-)

Dave C.

    I even bought a proper dictionary in Japan.
    
    (I just wish there were a proper dictionary for translating between
    Japanese and English or approximation thereof.  Existing dictionaries
    all seem to approximate the Japanese instead of the English, which is
    great for native Japanese speakers but not for others.)
    
    -- Norman Diamond

	Has anyone mentioned the gummint's nucular bidness?

		-- Cliff

    I was under the impresssion that "correct" pronunciation was
    defined as "as pronounced by educated upper class speakers."  This
    is the argument for the BBC-speak method as well as the
    non-specific American pronunciation used by newscasters.
    
    This definition does not preclude gradual changes in correct
    pronunciation, and if most educated speakers say "nucular"
    (I don't believe they do, though), then that's the right way
    to say it.
    
    Doug_who_pronounces_"through"_as_if_it_were_spelled_"throo"

    I can tell you what is right. It is pronounced "Nuclear", as in "new"
    and "clear". Not so difficult, is it????
    
    Ray

>          <<< Note 970.30 by STARCH::HAGERMAN "Flames to /dev/null" >>>
>                              -< what is right? >-
>...    
>    This definition does not preclude gradual changes in correct
>    pronunciation, and if most educated speakers say "nucular"
>    (I don't believe they do, though), then that's the right way
>    to say it.

Then the goal is to head off these "gradual changes" by keeping expected
pronounciations consistent, that is, keeping would-be well-educated,
sophisticated speakers on the right path so that when they do become
influential they won't be carrying errant verbal baggage with them
that would then become mainstream.

- tom]

    Expected "pronounciations"?
    
    By all means!  Head them off!  Please!  Let's start with
    "pronounciations".

>>    pronunciation, and if most educated speakers say "nucular"
>>    (I don't believe they do, though), then that's the right way
>>    to say it.
    
    See my flame about "processes" in note 5.0, the first topic on
    mispronunciations in this notes file (that's what it was then,
    a notes file).  Note 5.0 was in turn inspired by (guess what?)
    "nucular" in note 4.5.
    
    And yes, I did mention "pronounciation" by inference in 5.0.
    
    --Simon