And then get up and say we could do all three at once?

I want to hear about the idiocy of the rule against split infinitives. Seriously.

Anyway.

The difference between the pretension of English-speaking people saying “Par-EE” for Paris and an English-speaking person saying “Pah-kistan” is that English is one of the languages of Pakistan, so you’re using an English-language pronunciation when you say it.

In other words, the “Pah-kistan”/”Pak-istan” difference is more like the “wah-ter”/”wu-dder” (water) difference. Both are used by native English-speakers, and although choosing the less usual pronunciation may catch attention, it shouldn’t be considered pretentious.

“that doesn’t explain why Afghanistan (and any other -stan) doesn’t get the same treatment from Obama. It’s only Pock-i-stohn and the Tal-ee-bohn.”

That’s because Afghanistan was never conquered by the English and does not have English as an official, native language. When you hear an Afghani speaking in English and referring to his country, you know he’s speaking English as a foreign language so you don’t absorb his pronunciation as somehow correct.

And “Taliban” is a new enough word that an “English language” pronunciation hasn’t been settled on yet.

“Nukular”, on the other hand, it just wrong. You’re not putting an accent in a different place, and you’re not pronouncing a vowel differently. You’re changing the position of consonants. “Nukular” is easier to say (the double “oo” sound is attractive to native English speakers), however, so “nuclear” to “nukular” may have been a natural evolution of the word under pre-literate circumstances. But when the spelling of the word is fixed, the variation just makes the user look aliterate.

Waaaay too long response, I know. But language evolution and the descriptive/prescriptive debate is a big issue for me in my work. Just don’t get me started on the idiocy of the rule against split infinitives…

And I thought Brokaw did a good job. He is in a tough spot if the candidates aren’t following their own rules.

Speaking of the candidates penises, Obama is “sup-SUPER-circumSIZEd.”

http://www.thegreatschlep.com/site/index.html

Another, separate thought: McCain’s and Palin’s re-introduction of Ayers and questions of Obama’s “patriotism” on the stump (though John was too cowardly to repeat them to Barack’s face) give encouragement to hotheads who shout “treason” and worse and could foment some attempt on Obama’s life. Where is the press attention on this highly dangerous tack, and on the character of the team who would risk their opponent’s assassination to turn around their poll numbers? Sick, and sickening.

McCain looked like an old man trussed up in corsets and girdles in an effort to make him appear erect, younger, and virile.

Both men talked too much macho smack; Obama to a lessor degree. The Chinese own $500Bn in US treasuries, and the Russians own $75Bn in US treasuries, http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt. We are borrowing money from the Chinese Sovereign Wealth Fund and the Russian Sovereign Wealth Fund, and then we are to turn around and use that borrowed money to buy the bullets to fight the Russians and Chinese with. This is madness!!

$1Bn for Georgia, and where does the Bn come from, it is borrowed from Russia.

Neither Obama nor McCain had an answer as to how do we get out of our current economic situation; though I believe Obama has a better understanding of what caused our economic meltdown. Where is William ‘Bill’ Clinton when we need him; oopz, that’s right, he can’t run again. His wife, Hillary, should be.
`

Didn’t happen. Not even close.

And the “that one” comment? Just kind of immature. Dude, you’re on national television during a _presidential debate_. Why can’t you just make eye-contact and use proper names? Totally childish. Did someone help him plan that comment? Because that person should be fired.