| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/19/2013 05:45:40 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Did you read the definition you linked to? It says the word is nonstandard. |
Yes... but let us not confuse "Nonstandard" with it being a non word, which is I believe what you stated at the onset.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-01-19 17:46:58. |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 05:49:36 PM · #52 |
One of the glories of the English language is that it is (As a college professor of mine put it) a slut language. It will allow the use of whatever works. The French have a ministry to keep their language pure. No such bars to acceptance into English usage, It is a strategery that has worked fine and even Homer's "D'ho" has made it into the hallowed pages of the OED. Some words ain't right proper, but if they hang around long enough, they are as good as any other word. If we all used strictly proper usage our language would have ossified centuries ago and we wold be able to read Shakespeare, Spencer and Bacon as easily as the morning paper. But we can't, our language moves and grows irregardless of grammarians.
And if you want to be proper, the word is "substandard", not "nonstandard". The word nonstandard was first used in 1923 by lexicographers and hence is in fact a younger word than irregardless.
Message edited by author 2013-01-19 18:27:21. |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 06:04:51 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
"Irregardless is an illegitimate word. Putting the prefix Ir before the word regardless effectively makes it a double negative; thus the meaning of the word becomes: "without without regard." so instead of the intended meaning, which is without regard, it becomes just the opposite: with regard to! |
Please share your wisdom with the editors of the Merriam/Webster and the Oxford English Dictionaries as they seem to have made a horrible error. Leave off calling them "tools" when you do, it is a tough insult to drop on someone for improper usage of the language.
Message edited by author 2013-01-19 18:08:29. |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 06:43:21 PM · #54 |
LOL, I could imagine you guys playing Scrabble! :-D
|
|
|
|
01/19/2013 06:56:51 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
One of the glories of the English language is that it is (As a college professor of mine put it) a slut language. It will allow the use of whatever works. The French have a ministry to keep their language pure. No such bars to acceptance into English usage, It is a strategery that has worked fine and even Homer's "D'ho" has made it into the hallowed pages of the OED. |
Except it's "D'oh" ... |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 07:17:15 PM · #56 |
| I'm a recently retired high school assistant principal. There are simple ways to hand this situation that are not instrusive, don't put anyone at risk and don't scare a whole school filled with children and teachers. In fact, I've been in situations such as this and they can all be handled in sensitive but direct ways. I won't go into the details. Trust me that a lock down isn't the way to handle this situation. Having said that, I wasn't there so don't know the particulars and wouldn't want to Monday Morning Quarterback this particular instance. |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 07:49:20 PM · #57 |
19 (now 20) posts on irregardless. I love it.
If you don't think its a real word then you are wrong. Plain and simple, wrong. You can argue all you want, you will still be and ever will be, wrong.
It IS a real word but may not used often depending on your ancestry, cultural background, etc. which is why so many are confused by it.
If you go to MW you'll read about it. And if its linked right with MW, you'll see a video on it.
Its not much different than writing "th" with an "h" with a horizontal line (which I do on occasion).
Funny thing though....when I proofread the original post I thought to myself that someone might say something on the word. Heh....
Message edited by author 2013-01-19 19:49:54. |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 08:02:22 PM · #58 |
Usage of the irregular "irregardless" will persist, regardless of its propriety ...
21 |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 08:23:17 PM · #59 |
Regardless, I don't think that English grammar is a qualifier for gun safety.
I'm a third generation "Grammar Queen" and "irregardless" does bother me, but... I don't think that knowing the definition of this word should be on the test required to own a gun.
I don't see why it's relevant here.
Now... apostrophe usage for making a noun plural? THAT should be criminal.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2013 08:39:10 PM · #60 |
Every once in a while, 'zingers' come in threes.
1) In a discussion on "Gunrelated lock-down" we have a spirited debate on the use of "irregardless" that is hilarious.
2) In the middle of all this semantics,  Puppydogmom makes a serious, telling comment.
I'm a recently retired high school assistant principal. There are simple ways to hand this situation that are not instrusive, don't put anyone at risk and don't scare a whole school filled with children and teachers. In fact, I've been in situations such as this and they can all be handled in sensitive but direct ways. I won't go into the details. Trust me that a lock down isn't the way to handle this situation. Having said that, I wasn't there so don't know the particulars and wouldn't want to Monday Morning Quarterback this particular instance.
3) The third zinger: One of our more thoughtful commentators, LydiaToo says: Regardless, I don't think that English grammar is a qualifier for gun safety. I'm a third generation "Grammar Queen" and "irregardless" does bother me, but... I don't think that knowing the definition of this word should be on the test required to own a gun.
I don't see why it's relevant here.
But, you know what? I'd love to see a gun ownership test include the proper usage of grammar. Man, would that decimate the gun ownership ranks.
this is a fascinating thread.
And,  Strikeslip, good for your kids. You must cherish them even more for their response.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2013 09:20:41 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Every once in a while, 'zingers' come in threes.
1) In a discussion on "Gunrelated lock-down" we have a spirited debate on the use of "irregardless" that is hilarious.
2) In the middle of all this semantics, Puppydogmom makes a serious, telling comment.
I'm a recently retired high school assistant principal. There are simple ways to hand this situation that are not instrusive, don't put anyone at risk and don't scare a whole school filled with children and teachers. In fact, I've been in situations such as this and they can all be handled in sensitive but direct ways. I won't go into the details. Trust me that a lock down isn't the way to handle this situation. Having said that, I wasn't there so don't know the particulars and wouldn't want to Monday Morning Quarterback this particular instance.
3) The third zinger: One of our more thoughtful commentators, LydiaToo says: Regardless, I don't think that English grammar is a qualifier for gun safety. I'm a third generation "Grammar Queen" and "irregardless" does bother me, but... I don't think that knowing the definition of this word should be on the test required to own a gun.
I don't see why it's relevant here.
But, you know what? I'd love to see a gun ownership test include the proper usage of grammar. Man, would that decimate the gun ownership ranks.
this is a fascinating thread.
And, Strikeslip, good for your kids. You must cherish them even more for their response. |
Ha! I'd be happy just seeing the proper usage of grammar being required for every teacher-qualification test, no matter what subject they teach.
But, I digress... :D
"Carry" on... *grin*
|
|
|
|
01/19/2013 10:45:50 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
It's nonstandard, like "ain't" and using it as if it is part of proper English just shows ignorance, especially when trying to make others look ignorant for their views. |
Proper English... as in those words that have the letter "U" in them, as in colour, honour, harbour... those kinds of words. :O)
Ray |
No proper as in correct. "Honor", spelled without the "u" is not called out as nonstandard. |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 10:47:11 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by PGerst:
Funny thing though....when I proofread the original post I thought to myself that someone might say something on the word. Heh.... |
That's like using "ain't" and expecting not to come across as ignorant.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2013 10:48:44 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
And if you want to be proper, the word is "substandard", not "nonstandard". The word nonstandard was first used in 1923 by lexicographers and hence is in fact a younger word than irregardless. |
I suggest you inform Mirriam Webster that they're wrong. |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 10:49:51 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by PGerst:
Funny thing though....when I proofread the original post I thought to myself that someone might say something on the word. Heh.... |
That's like using "ain't" and expecting not to come across as ignorant. |
You know, people that are SERIOUS about the sanctity of grammar would ding you for using the contraction of "that is"... It's all relative, don'tcha know? |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 10:50:29 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
And if you want to be proper, the word is "substandard", not "nonstandard". The word nonstandard was first used in 1923 by lexicographers and hence is in fact a younger word than irregardless. |
I suggest you inform Mirriam Webster that they're wrong. |
It's not Miriam you need to contact, it's her uncle Merriam... |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 10:50:48 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
One of the glories of the English language is that it is (As a college professor of mine put it) a slut language. It will allow the use of whatever works. The French have a ministry to keep their language pure. No such bars to acceptance into English usage, It is a strategery that has worked fine and even Homer's "D'ho" has made it into the hallowed pages of the OED. |
Except it's "D'oh" ... |
D'ho is a streetwalker
|
|
|
|
01/19/2013 10:58:22 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
And if you want to be proper, the word is "substandard", not "nonstandard". The word nonstandard was first used in 1923 by lexicographers and hence is in fact a younger word than irregardless. |
I suggest you inform Mirriam Webster that they're wrong. |
It's not Miriam you need to contact, it's her uncle Merriam... |
Ha! Now that was funny... |
|
|
|
01/19/2013 11:19:33 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
And if you want to be proper, the word is "substandard", not "nonstandard". The word nonstandard was first used in 1923 by lexicographers and hence is in fact a younger word than irregardless. |
I suggest you inform Mirriam Webster that they're wrong. |
" There are prescriptive and descriptive dictionaries. A prescriptive dictionary focuses on the way the language should be according to traditional rules, and a descriptive dictionary focuses on the language that is actually in use by the population. So a descriptive dictionary is likely to include words that a prescriptive dictionary would leave out. Many older dictionaries are prescriptive, but most modern dictionaries are descriptive. Some people think the American Heritage Dictionary is the most prescriptive modern dictionary. It still includes nonstandard words like irregardless, but it seems to make stronger statements against them than other dictionaries."
So descriptive dictionaries list all the words that are out there, but they don't try to separate wheat from chaff. i would be willing to bet the best editors would edit out half the words in a descriptive dictionary in a piece they were working on in a quest for ideal usage of the language. Merriam Webster is a descriptive dictionary; they define both "nonstandard" and "irrelevant". Neither ideal usage, but both right fine words. |
|
|
|
01/20/2013 04:50:53 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
It's nonstandard, like "ain't" and using it as if it is part of proper English just shows ignorance, especially when trying to make others look ignorant for their views. |
Proper English... as in those words that have the letter "U" in them, as in colour, honour, harbour... those kinds of words. :O)
Ray |
No proper as in correct. "Honor", spelled without the "u" is not called out as nonstandard. |
Reminds me of the time that someone told me that they saw a sign in Australia that said: "English spoken here... American understood",there seemingly is a difference.
Regardless... even non-standard words are correct...they might not fit your mold, but they are correct.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/20/2013 10:58:02 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Regardless... even non-standard words are correct...they might not fit your mold, but they are correct.
Ray |
They are, eh? ;-)
Actually, it's all Thomas Jefferson's fault.
Originally posted by Linked Article:
The office of the president offers a lot of responsibilities and privileges. Your actions drive the world's most powerful military, billions of dollars worth of domestic policy and, perhaps most importantly, the way the country speaks.
That's what linguist and writer Paul Dickson contends in his new book, Words From the White House. It's a look back through history at the words and phrases popularized by our presidents ΓΆ€” including the ones they don't get credit for anymore.
Teddy Roosevelt, for example, loved language, Dickson tells NPR's Rachel Martin. "He would create a word like 'mollycoddle,' for sort of somebody you would say was timid, and 'bully pulpit,' you know, the bully pulpit being the presidency itself." Presidents, Dickson says, have to be eloquent. "They have to be able to get up there and convince people."
Dickson says the most eloquent and convincing president was Thomas Jefferson. "To this day, in the Oxford English Dictionary, there are 114 terms which are laid at his feet ΓΆ€” either pure coinages or him being the first to use it," he says. "And some of them are quite interesting."
Did you know that Jefferson was apparently the first to use the word "ottoman" to refer not to the empire, but to the footstool? And Dickson says words like "pedicure" and "lengthily" are also attributed to our third president ΓΆ€” along with, appropriately enough, "neologize."
"He writes a letter to John Adams, who's another very good creator of language, ... and says, 'It's our obligation as Americans to neologize, to create a new language, which is the American language,' " Dickson says. That language would be full of Americanisms like "OK" and "slam dunk," which might be sneered at by a speaker of the King's English. |
|
|
|
|
01/20/2013 12:23:20 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Spork99:
It's nonstandard, like "ain't" and using it as if it is part of proper English just shows ignorance, especially when trying to make others look ignorant for their views. |
Proper English... as in those words that have the letter "U" in them, as in colour, honour, harbour... those kinds of words. :O)
Ray |
No proper as in correct. "Honor", spelled without the "u" is not called out as nonstandard. |
Reminds me of the time that someone told me that they saw a sign in Australia that said: "English spoken here... American understood",there seemingly is a difference.
Regardless... even non-standard words are correct...they might not fit your mold, but they are correct.
Ray |
Try using "irregardless" in a term paper. |
|
|
|
01/20/2013 12:25:25 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by PGerst:
Funny thing though....when I proofread the original post I thought to myself that someone might say something on the word. Heh.... |
That's like using "ain't" and expecting not to come across as ignorant. |
You know, people that are SERIOUS about the sanctity of grammar would ding you for using the contraction of "that is"... It's all relative, don'tcha know? |
Irregardless, the peeps here ain't serious. Fo shizzle. |
|
|
|
01/20/2013 05:37:59 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I graduated High school in 96.... I always had a gun in my truck...ON CAMPUS.... We would compare weapons in the school parking lot. Sometimes even with cops. There was no "gun scare". There were alot of times where I would go hunting after school so I had ammo and the works |
You say this like it is some of sort of benchmark of 'the right way to live'. You do know how out-of-kilter this is with the experiences of most people don't you?
I'm unclear whether you are making the point that 'things have (rightly) moved on' or whether you are 'hankering for the good ole days'... |
I was making the point that society has changed. People have gone crazy. I believe that it is the parenting styles of today vs a few years ago. |
You graduated 3 years before the Columbine massacre. What exactly has changed? |
|
|
|
01/20/2013 05:47:54 PM · #75 |
I do find it interesting that:
1: If people misuse a word often enough, it makes it into a dictionary and then that makes it correct.
2: We are talking about grammar on a school gun thread.
3: I'd rather talk about grammar than guns and, apparently, so would others.
|
|
