Joe Six-Pack American?

[Allahuakbar]

Mispronounced? Perhaps you missed the pronunciation offered as an alternate by Webster's

Unfortunately this is wrong. Until you learn how to read pronunciation guides, any argument you make will be invalid. Why you would continue to make comments without this basic understanding, I do not know.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Unfortunately this is wrong. Until you learn how to read pronunciation guides, any argument you make will be invalid. Why you would continue to make comments without this basic understanding, I do not know.

Variant Pronunciations

Readers often turn to the dictionary wanting to learn the exact pronunciation of a word, only to discover that the word may have several pronunciations, as is the case for deity, economic, envelope, and greasy, among many others. The inclusion of variant pronunciations disappoints those who want their dictionary to list one "correct" pronunciation. In truth, though, there can be no objective standard for correct pronunciation other than the usage of thoughtful and, in particular, educated speakers of English. Among such speakers one hears much variation in pronunciation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/pronguide_intro.htm

 

[Allahuakbar]

Variant Pronunciations

Readers often turn to the dictionary wanting to learn the exact pronunciation of a word, only to discover that the word may have several pronunciations, as is the case for deity, economic, envelope, and greasy, among many others. The inclusion of variant pronunciations disappoints those who want their dictionary to list one "correct" pronunciation. In truth, though, there can be no objective standard for correct pronunciation other than the usage of thoughtful and, in particular, educated speakers of English. Among such speakers one hears much variation in pronunciation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/pronguide_intro.htm

And it is those variant pronunciations that are being misrepresented. You MUST learn what the symbols mean before making an argument.

 

[Allahuakbar]

or
pop·u·lar javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?popula02.wav=popular')Pronunciation: \ˈpä-pyə-lər\
This sure is silly.

For example you misrepresented this word, not knowing what you posted. What do you think you posted, phonetically?

 

[MachZer0]

Unfortunately this is wrong. Until you learn how to read pronunciation guides, any argument you make will be invalid. Why you would continue to make comments without this basic understanding, I do not know.

That's interesting since your previous posts confirmed my point

 

[MachZer0]

Variant Pronunciations

Readers often turn to the dictionary wanting to learn the exact pronunciation of a word, only to discover that the word may have several pronunciations, as is the case for deity, economic, envelope, and greasy, among many others. The inclusion of variant pronunciations disappoints those who want their dictionary to list one "correct" pronunciation. In truth, though, there can be no objective standard for correct pronunciation other than the usage of thoughtful and, in particular, educated speakers of English. Among such speakers one hears much variation in pronunciation.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/pronguide_intro.htm

QFT

 

[Allahuakbar]

That's interesting since your previous posts confirmed my point

Not true as well. At this point you should have learned. So the only real conclusion is that you are deliberately misrepresenting others, intentionally saying things that are not true because you find it amusing.

As it is, you are intentionally saying things that are untrue about other posters and the dictionary. I agree, it is QFT. You seem to love those Twinkies, but they are so intellectually unfulfilling.

 

[jgarden]

She (Sarah Palin)won 530 votes to John Hartrick’s 310.On the (Wasilla) council, she successfully opposed a measure to curtail the hours at Wasilla's bars by two hours, which surprised Hartrick because she was then a member of a church that advocated abstinence from alcohol .....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

**********************************************************
Perhaps there is more to Sarah "Joe Six-Pack" Palin than meets the eye.

 

[MachZer0]

Not true as well. At this point you should have learned. So the only real conclusion is that you are deliberately misrepresenting others, intentionally saying things that are not true because you find it amusing.

As it is, you are intentionally saying things that are untrue about other posters and the dictionary. I agree, it is QFT. You seem to love those Twinkies, but they are so intellectually unfulfilling.

My claims have all been substantiated by Webster's. You have even substatiated them yourself. Reality seems to favor me yet again

 

[Grizzly]

My claims have all been substantiated by Webster's. You have even substatiated them yourself. Reality seems to favor me yet again

You are so cute when you declare yourself vindicated.

 

[MachZer0]

You are so cute when you declare yourself vindicated.

Cute is not my goal, the truth is. Vindication is sweet. Thanks for noticing

 

[Grizzly]

Cute is not my goal, the truth is. Vindication is sweet. Thanks for noticing

No problem, my right leaning friend.

 

[Papias]

Mach, back on post #229, it was pointed out that out of about a half dozen dictionaries, you ignored all but the one that you thought you could use to defend the cue-lar pronunciation. This shows that you either engaged in intentional source-shopping, or were too lazy to look at more than one source (and just "happened" to only look at the one you wanted). Your only response was again to try to distract the discussion over to Jesse’s axe. First, I think many of us here, including myself, would like to hear what you have to say about that – were you lazy, did you attempt to deceptively source-shop, or is there some other explanation?

Secondly, in post #246, Baggins showed that even the one source (mirriam-websters) you have relied on (not even addressing if you are using the pronunciation legend correctly) goes on to say explicitly that you are incorrect, so you have exactly zero sources to your defense. I think many of us here, including myself, would like to hear what you have to say about that – do you agree that your only source doesn’t even support you, or is there some other explanation?

Baggins wrote:

This just in from Webster's dictionary:

Webster's standard response to readers inquiring about "nucular":
We do not list the pronunciation of "nuclear" as \'nü-ky&-l&r\ as an "acceptable" alternative. We merely list it as an alternative. It is clearly preceded by the obelus mark \÷\. This mark indicates "a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable." A full description of this can be found in the Guide to Pronunciation on our website at http://www.m-w.com/pronguid.htm. We are definitely not advocating that anyone should use the pronunciation \'nü-ky&-l&r\ or that they should abandon the pronunciation \'nü-klE-&r\.

Thirdly, in post #197, I quoted a source that explained the history of this incorrect pronunciation. You again “responded” by ignoring the point. I think many of us here, including myself, would like to hear what you have to say about that – do you consider ignoring points to be a valid discussion method, or is there some other explanation?

Fourthly, in a number of posts, I’ve pointed out other examples of incorrect English, and stated that I don’t defend them, just as I don’t defend Jesse’s axe or any other mangled English or poor educational standards. I think many of us here, including myself, would like to hear what you have to say about that – do you advocate further degradation of the US educational standards, or is there some other explanation?

Let’s try this again, and see if you coherently respond to questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 – or if you ignore these and simply bring up Jesse’s axe – which we already agree on.

Thanks-

Papias

 

[DieHappy]

m-w.com is the most common, it's the first one most go to, so source shopping is an insult.
It says:

a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech

 

[Allahuakbar]

m-w.com is the most common, it's the first one most go to, so source shopping is an insult.
It says:

And M-W Provides accepted pronunciations. None of which support MachZer0. He is intentionally misrepresenting the source. This is dishonest.

 

[MachZer0]

Mach, back on post #229, it was pointed out that out of about a half dozen dictionaries, you ignored all but the one that you thought you could use to defend the cue-lar pronunciation. This shows that you either engaged in intentional source-shopping, or were too lazy to look at more than one source (and just "happened" to only look at the one you wanted). Your only response was again to try to distract the discussion over to Jesse’s axe. First, I think many of us here, including myself, would like to hear what you have to say about that – were you lazy, did you attempt to deceptively source-shop, or is there some other explanation?

Pardon me but the first source offered here was Webster's and that was offered by me. So it should be safe to assume, based on your analysis, that all other offers of sources fall into the intentional source shopping category

 

[MachZer0]

And M-W Provides accepted pronunciations. None of which support MachZer0. He is intentionally misrepresenting the source. This is dishonest.

It would seem that Webster's actually contradicts you

All of the pronunciations recorded in this book can be documented
as falling within the range of generally acceptable
variation, unless they are accompanied by a restricting usage​

note or symbol or a regional label.

 

[Allahuakbar]

Pardon me but the first source offered here was Webster's and that was offered by me. So it should be safe to assume, based on your analysis, that all other offers of sources fall into the intentional source shopping category

This is not true.

You said in post 129...

"For those who are not as well informed on some matters of vocabulary, the "nucular" pronunciation is perfectly acceptable. Please visit Websters for the definition of nuclear and the acceptable pronunciations are listed along with audio versions"

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7292251&page=13

Now, please notice that MachZer0 did not provide a link. This is a warning sign. When a link is deliberately withheld, there is usually a reason.

Also, simply saying "Please visit..." is not a reference. The point of a reference is to allow someone to check up on your facts, which a vague term like "Please visit..." does not provide.

in fact I provided the first link in post 134...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7292251&page=14

Which MachZer0 plagiarized in post 136...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7292251&page=14

Unless MachZer0's standards are so low that any vague reference is a source, he is not telling the truth.

He was vague precisely because he was wrong and he wanted to avoid responsibility. If you notice, he even misrepresented what was in Webster's by posting "ˈnyü-, ÷-kyə-lər" for "nucular", not understanding he was referencing the wrong pronunciation, probably because he did not know what "kyə" meant.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7292251&page=14

MachZer0 is trying to get someone to call him a name. He wants to be attacked so he can turn around and point the finger at someone to say how they are attacking him.

He is deliberately using untruth, taunting, and half-truths to engender a response. This is deliberate. Please do not fall for it.

 

[MachZer0]

This is not true.

You said in post 129...

"For those who are not as well informed on some matters of vocabulary, the "nucular" pronunciation is perfectly acceptable. Please visit Websters for the definition of nuclear and the acceptable pronunciations are listed along with audio versions"

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7292251&page=13

Now, please notice that MachZer0 did not provide a link. This is a warning sign. When a link is deliberately withheld, there is usually a reason.

Also, simply saying "Please visit..." is not a reference. The point of a reference is to allow someone to check up on your facts, which a vague term like "Please visit..." does not provide.

in fact I provided the first link in post 134...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7292251&page=14

Which MachZer0 plagiarized in post 136...

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7292251&page=14

Unless MachZer0's standards are so low that any vague reference is a source, he is not telling the truth.

He was vague precisely because he was wrong and he wanted to avoid responsibility. If you notice, he even misrepresented what was in Webster's by posting "ˈnyü-, ÷-kyə-lər" for "nucular", not understanding he was referencing the wrong pronunciation, probably because he did not know what "kyə" meant.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7292251&page=14

MachZer0 is trying to get someone to call him a name. He wants to be attacked so he can turn around and point the finger at someone to say how they are attacking him.

He is deliberately using untruth, taunting, and half-truths to engender a response. This is deliberate. Please do not fall for it.

And all of that, incorrect as it may be, does nothing to dispute the fact that Webster's disagrees with you and confirms my point.

 

[Allahuakbar]

And all of that, incorrect as it may be, does nothing to dispute the fact that Webster's disagrees with you and confirms my point.

Quoted for Twinkie.

MachZer0 does not have an argument. He simply wants to be attacked and then claim victim status. Yes this is deceitful, but it is not against the rules, or at least as some people interpret them. Do not fall for it. He knows he is wrong, but is playing the part.