View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
missdaredevil
Joined: 08 Dec 2004 Posts: 1670 Location: Ask me
|
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:15 am Post subject: pre-emptive |
|
|
A *pre-emptive* Amercian strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
The closest thing I could find is *law purchase: the act or process of purchasing something ( formal ) *.
Is that a new word? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
helen1
Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 115
|
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm
I believe pre-emptive strike means attacking someone you think is a threat (i.e. will attack you), before they attack you
here however it seems the writer is referring to the 'threat' of owning nuclear weapons as being the pre-emptive strike.
Anyone got a different view? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bud
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 Posts: 2111 Location: New Jersey, US
|
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, except the perceived threat is not necessarily limited to the acquistion of nuclear (or "newkyuler" to Bush) weapons by another country. The American acquisition of nuclear weapons is a pre-emptive strike against any threat by a non-nuclear nation. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
obelix
Joined: 09 Feb 2003 Posts: 304
|
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And not just Bush - it seems to me that half the English-speaking world calls it newkyuler nowadays.. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
missdaredevil
Joined: 08 Dec 2004 Posts: 1670 Location: Ask me
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:56 am Post subject: What *newkyuler*? |
|
|
bud wrote: |
Yes, except the perceived threat is not necessarily limited to the acquistion of nuclear (or "newkyuler" to Bush) weapons by another country. The American acquisition of nuclear weapons is a pre-emptive strike against any threat by a non-nuclear nation. |
Could you please explain that to me? I haven't updated that piece of info.
Thanks |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bud
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 Posts: 2111 Location: New Jersey, US
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I think you're right, Obelix... I was listening to a linguist on the radio some months back and, believe it or not, she stated that there is nothing wrong with that pronunciation. Her reason was that if it is widespread in some region, then it can be considered dialect. Same thing with y'all that many of our Southerners in the US say.
Missdaredevil - Do you mean explain newkyuler? It's a phonetic spelling, not a real spelling. It was an attempt to sound out the way many people pronounce the word.
For nuclear, some people say: NEW-clee-er (Capitalized syllable is stressed)
Others say: NEWK-you-ler (Many who say it the first way are annoyed to hear it the second way, as they believe it is incorrect.) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
missdaredevil
Joined: 08 Dec 2004 Posts: 1670 Location: Ask me
|
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:37 pm Post subject: Thanks |
|
|
Thanks for letting me know |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bud
Joined: 09 Mar 2003 Posts: 2111 Location: New Jersey, US
|
Posted: Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Happy to help. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|