The funny thing about language is that it never stays the same. On a daily basis, the context of words or phrases can change, words can die, or brand new ones can just fly in to everyday conversation. Even the official pronunciation or spelling of words can change. The topic of “nuclear threats,” can change to “nucular threats.” Yes, that’s right. Nucular.
I’ve got to admit, that nuke-word of my biggest pet peeves. Maybe it’s my inner bio major screaming that scientific terminology has to be perfect, or maybe I’m just old-fashioned. Despite my thoughts, though, the word is catching on, most likely because it was pioneered by a president.
Yes, the origins of “nucular” came from our very own President Bush, as one of his many “Bush-isms.” In his discussions concerning the Middle East, he would always say “nucular” when referring to WMDs, never correcting himself on his pronunciation. But then again, he was the president. He had to believe in his deliverance of the term, and he couldn’t correct himself without seeming unsure or weak. No one, especially not members of rival political factions, would follow a president who didn’t believe in his own words.
But Bush did believe in what he was saying, and “nucular” has caught on as a result. After all, if the president says something, it must be right. Right? More and more people are now using what is technically an inappropriate version of the “nuclear.” But that’s where the dynamic nature of language comes in. Language, ultimately, is what the majority of people say. That’s how nouns such as “muggle” or verbs like “google” (think Facebook) end up in official dictionaries. Even now, “nucular” is being treated as an acceptable term in many less prominent or online dictionaries due to its nationwide use. Technical speakers like myself are becoming a dying breed, losing against the onslaught of “nucular” warfare. Eventually, “nucular” may become an official synonym or even the more popular term for something that is “operated or powered by atomic energy” (“Nuclear”).
The point is, language is flexible, developing alongside people. It’s why “olde Englishe” is no longer used, and conversation is more… conversational in modern days. So, it’s not “I dost believe that the foe hath acquired a nuclear arsenal” anymore, it’s “I think the enemies have some nucular weapons.
"Nuclear." Dictionary.com. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2011.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuclear>.
•
"Okay, I Give Up, It's Nucular." Zazzle. 2011. Web. 28 Jan. 2011.
<http://www.zazzle.com/okay_i_give_up_its_nucular_tshirt-235876159089749667>.
I don't know what to think about this change. A huge part of me wants to use the correct grammar and pronunciation, but that issue was the reason Latin died out as a language. Allowing "nucular" and "refudiate" to become so respected as terms is horrifying. You can't just mash two words with similar meanings (refute and repudiate) and call it a new word.
ReplyDeleteThe challenge here is to decide which things are worth fighting for, and which are worth letting slide. Sometimes these changes obscure meaning.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, I've heard some people say "Six to one, half a dozen to the other." This makes no sense on its own, and simply serves to indicate "they're equivalent." Of course, changing "to" to "of" brings the comparison into sharper contrast; we're now saying that two ways of counting got us to the same result, which is a symbolically richer approach.