Evolution Vs. Norse Mythology: An Allegory the targets won't understand

Go here for a nice skewering of the idiocy of Intelligent Design/Creationism.

BTW, folks: The only difference between "Intelligent Design" and Creationism is that ID attempts (and fails) to use science to support its ideas. At least Creationists have the sense to admit they have no proof.

I feel a rant regarding creationism and ID coming on.

Horrible pain as meme

Yesterday artistic_chaos had a migraine.

Today I have a terrible headache that began around 6am and is getting worse. Light sensitivity is up.

I don't know for sure if I have the actual Migraine syndrome, but I sure do have some of the most common symptoms.

Now I just have to muddle through the day for as long as I can.

How studying linguistics made it harder for me to call people morons.

mslulu posted a little while ago that we need a constitutional amendment that forbids anyone who cannot correctly pronounce "nuclear" from becoming president.

I'm really torn on this topic. On the one hand, every time I hear "noo-kye-ler," I want to kill. On the other hand, it's not really such a heinous error.

See, the thing is, pronunciation, despite what some would have you believe, is not constant. See this entry on "Received Pronunciation" in England, or an even better article on the difficulties of English pronunciation "rules."

I quote:

"Within the United States, home to 232 million native speakers of English, there is no single perceived standard of pronunciation. There are certain norms based on the variety of English spoken in the northern United States (not including New England) that have been adopted for use by news broadcasters, but even these are subject to more regional variation than most people might suppose. Thus, generally speaking, standards in the U.S., if they exist at all, tend to be regional. And with regard to the pronunciation of vowels in particular an enormous variation is tolerated across regional boundaries."

As any dictionary writer will tell you, a word is pronounced however you pronounce it. Standard American English says that "Nuclear" should be pronounced "noo-klee-er" (to use a non-linguist transcription), and that other way grates on me, but linguistically speaking, it's not a sign of lack of intelligence, just a different way of pronouncing the word.

Saying "kew-pawn" for coupon doesn't bother me at all, but "koo-pawn" does, because where I grew up, everyone said "kew-pawn." One is no more or less "correct" than the other.

That second article I linked to has this to say about "Nuclear:"

The pronunciation (noo´kye-ler), which is strongly objected to by many usage writers and others of their ilk, is an example of how a familiar phonological pattern can influence an unfamiliar one. The usual pronunciation of the final two syllables of this word is (-kle-er), but this sequence of sounds is rare in English. Much more common is the similar sequence (-kye-ler), which occurs in words like particular, circular, spectacular, and in many scientific words like molecular, ocular, and vascular. You may want to avoid this pronunciation despite the fact that it has been used in the recent past by some prominent speakers including Presidents Eisenhower and Carter. Note that the stigmatized variant can also occur in the word nucleus.</blockquote. Knowing that makes it hard for me to use it against someone -- while at the same time, I have to admit it grates on my nerves and I loathe hearing it.