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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Mispronounced? Perhaps you missed the pronunciation offered as an alternate by Webster's
Variant PronunciationsUnfortunately 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
or
pop·u·lar javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?popula02.wav=popular')Pronunciation: \ˈpä-pyə-lər\
This sure is silly.
That's interesting since your previous posts confirmed my pointUnfortunately 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.
QFTVariant 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
That's interesting since your previous posts confirmed my point
**********************************************************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
My claims have all been substantiated by Webster's. You have even substatiated them yourself. Reality seems to favor me yet againNot 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
Cute is not my goal, the truth is. Vindication is sweet. Thanks for noticing
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\.
m-w.com is the most common, it's the first one most go to, so source shopping is an insult.
It says:
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 categoryMach, 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 Jesses 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?
It would seem that Webster's actually contradicts youAnd M-W Provides accepted pronunciations. None of which support MachZer0. He is intentionally misrepresenting the source. This is dishonest.
All of the pronunciations recorded in this book can be documentednote or symbol or a regional label.
as falling within the range of generally acceptable
variation, unless they are accompanied by a restricting usage
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
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?