You're right about one thing, slemmet. You don't understand what everyone else is talking about. Read Bismark's post again. The reason met is easily distinguished from net is because of the e following the first consonant. Your description of the tongue and lip position is certainly accurate, but without a preceding or following vowel, all the air is passing through the nose. No air is coming out of the mouth, thus the position of the lips and tongue have very little effect on the sound.

Dima, if you ever invite me to a party, I think I'll pass on the Bloody Marys.

Yes, but Klaus, it's not pronounced ahtomobile either. It's awtomobile, and aunt isn't pronounced awnt. Regardless, comparing similarly spelled words in English is almost meaningless. There are so many different word origins that the same spelling can have many different pronunciations. The same pronunciation can also have a dozen different spellings.

PS - The dictionary is supposed to represent a consensus and be a final arbiter to allow some common method of communication. Ahnt is also listed in the dictionary (albeit after ant), so ahnt isn't wrong. According to the dictionary, ant may be preferred, or perhaps more common. To say the dictionary is wrong seems an odd point of view. The dictionary is simply a rule book that we as an English speaking society agree to abide by so that we can all have a common ground for communication. You're certainly free to say aunt any way you like, but it seems a bit self-centered to think that the rest of society is wrong.

Does this help? From dictionary.com:

—Usage note The traditional distinction between amount and number is that amount is used with mass or uncountable nouns (the amount of paperwork; the amount of energy) and number with countable nouns (a number of songs; a number of days). Although objected to, the use of amount instead of number with countable nouns occurs in both speech and writing, especially when the noun can be considered as a unit or group (the amount of people present; the amount of weapons) or when it refers to money (the amount of dollars paid; the amount of pennies in the till).

Do note, the relevant dictionary entries include definitions such as quantity, measure, number, sum, total of two or more quantities, aggregate. As such, I'm not sure if it's completely wrong to use "amount" in place of "number", at least not in all cases.

Here's a question: if I said "...the amount of people at the party" vs. "...the number of people at the party", would it mean the same thing? In this case, would "amount" refer to the group as a whole, but "number" refer to the actual numeric total, say 15 people?

Personally, I find much vs. many a more annoying misuse fo the language.

Lastly, it's interesting that "amount" or "much" is substituted for "number" or "many", but almost never happens the other way around.

I checked a few dictionaries and they all say "...occurring once a year". They do not say "...will occur..." or "...have occurred...". I think this is actually quite significant. It means that "annual" describes a present, instantaneous state, not a future or past one. Now, at first glance, it might seem to be dependent on future or past events, but this is not really true. It is actually dependent on a rate of change, which is also an instantaneous, present condition. With this in mind, I believe that "first annual" is a perfectly valid label.

Aubrey, is that a typo? -ize IS the American version. Why would you never use it in American English?

John, I did soften my position somewhat; however, I would not completely agree with you. They might or might not have different spectrograms depending on how the speaker exaggerates the position of his or her tongue, lips, etc. I can alternate m's and n's with absolutely no discernable difference in sound, or I can do so and make it quite clear that there's a difference. I would say that a spectrograph would show that the "n" may have more energy at higher frequencies than the "m", but only in an imprecise, qualitative way. Depending on exactly where I put my tongue, I can emphasize any one of six or seven different upper harmonic frequencies. I would put it to you that there is enough difference between speakers, that, hearing any single consonant in isolation, say, from 10 different speakers, it would be impossible to tell the difference.

Jake, you discounted autonomous but autonomic is somehwat different. Autonomic specifically refers to the autonomic nervous system which governs heart rate, breathing, etc., things under unconscious control, but may sometimes be consciously overridden. So, as has already been said, autonomic seems to be the perfect word.

I agree with you Aubrey, except that "grocery" in "grocery store" is also a noun, just like "groceries". Since "the horse is out of the barn", would you object to taking him to a "horse doctor"?

Excuse the brain freeze above. i didn't get much sleep last night. Clearly, "of a percent" would be used for something with a fraction of one percent, e.g. "a half of a percent" (or "a half of one percent") and would be correct. I think some style manuals say that "...of a..." should only be used with fractions and not with decimals: "three quarters of a percent" is ok and "point seven five percent", but not "point seven five of a percent". I don't think the "of a" would be required, per se, at least not when the percentage is greater than one, and also not used if the numbers (and/or the word "percent") are not spelled out at words.