“Irregardless”

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Captain Obvious, Aug 27, 2020.

  1. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,025
    Likes Received:
    16,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't accept that as an analysis of what's going on today - OR in the past.

    Let's remember that the very existence of dictionaries and unification of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation is a modern idea. Look at our own constitution!

    The FACT that words such as the offending word have come into existence is a matter of the public FAILING to be educated. Our educational institutions can't force people to stop making up crap words. In fact, there is no justification for suggesting they should try to do that, other than as a service to those who are willing and have the financing to attend and learn.

    There are LOTS of things that the general public doesn't really know anything about - even though they think they do.

    And I don't see anything you have said that could possibly support your low opinion of education.

    The real prolem is that people aren't getting themselves educated.

    In fact, the general tenor among so many people today is that education is a scourge on the people and to be avoided.
     
  2. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tow the line is my favorite incorrectly used term.
    It should be toe the line which actually makes sense but virtually everyone gets this phrase wrong.
    Even if irregardless is in the dictionary it means exactly the same thing as regardless and there are too many exact synonyms in English already.

    In any case these are Merriam Webster’s justifications for including the silly word:

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/is-irregardless-a-real-word-heh-heh
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2020
  3. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    61,025
    Likes Received:
    16,645
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, it isn't exactly a synonym.

    Those who use it are betraying something about themselves that goes beyond the meaning of the word!
     
  4. Swensson

    Swensson Devil's advocate

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,178
    Likes Received:
    1,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They also work for how words appear in the first place, how grammar evolves, how languages emerge (both the first time and as the result of one language splitting), how dialects and sublanguages work, language before anyone had standardised it, etc., none of which are consistent with the idea of a standardised language as the correct usage.

    That's not quite what I said. I the "correct" interpretation of language is how we use it to communicate. Your examples here are of failures to communicate, which is the opposite.

    But yes, what you need in your examples is not standards, you need language that you and the person you're communicating with agree on. In your average nuclear bomb instructions, you will find language (words and grammar) that you will not find in Merriam Webster, but that is not a problem, since nuclear physicists, engineers and technicians have ways of communicating (technical language, academic language, jargon). They're not standard English, but they are understood and useful nonetheless. You could ignore all conventional English standards and start speaking French or sign language, and as long as you are able to accurately communicate, I don't see a problem with it.

    Of course, using a common language is usually the quickest and easiest way to agree on how to communicate. However, at that point, language as it is used seems like a better choice than how it is prescribed by someone like Merriam Webster.

    The first bit here is a bit too vague for me to comment on well. In so broad terms, I would say descriptivism is the standard. How that fits into the rest of the sentence depends on exactly how you suggest that relation works.

    It seems to me the word is no more garbage than any other word. It was new once, and then caught on. There is a "logical" aspect to the word "irregardless" in particular (you haven't been quite clear on whether that is your objection, or if it is merely the use of a previously unused word) but I think the same argument will apply (for instance, it is no more "illogical than the meaning of the word "awful", but that has in no way kept "awful" from meaning what it means).

    I'm not sure how your "legitimizes ignorance" argument works. It seems to me, not including the word would be ignorance of how lexicography works.
     
  5. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is said that changes in grammar and the addition of new words is mostly driven by minorities.

    That being said, I’ve never heard anyone within American minorities use the world irregardless.
     
  6. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,533
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Y'all know a dictionary ain't the Bible it's a "listing of words used in one or more specific languages, often arranged alphabetically, which may include information on definitions, usage, etymologies, pronunciations, translation, etc."
     
  7. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pssst, adults play with a different set of rules than the ones you had when you were kids.
     
  8. Jolly Penguin

    Jolly Penguin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2020
    Messages:
    8,727
    Likes Received:
    4,051
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Though "irregardless" and "I could care less" (meaning they couldn't) annoy me, language does evolve and it is a dictionary's task to describe language commonly in use rather than to direct what language we must use.
     
    cirdellin likes this.
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,848
    Likes Received:
    1,834
    Trophy Points:
    113
    a quality dictionary lists the word, usage-source for each variant, how each source used it, today they combine these in a single statement, no usage-source and create their own usage
    Not anymore! Today they are in competition with: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The Urban Dictionary

    I have lodged several complaints with them for taking some renegades work and popularizing it by including in their definition despite contemporary philosophy contradicts and quashed these renegade definitions. Some of them have become very politically motivated now days.

    nonetheless its wrong lexi to popularize agendas as they are doing today
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2020
  10. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    59,329
    Likes Received:
    32,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dictionaries are records of the history of usage. English, of course, existed long before the first dictionary, so they can't really be the "standard" or the authority. If dictionaries never changed to reflect usage, they would still say that "punk" only means "prostitute" and that it is wrong to use "you" as a singular pronoun. Dictionaries can't be relevant unless they eventually change to reflect usage.

    It reminds me of one of my favorite movie scenes.

    Drax: That's a made-up word!
    Thor: All words are made up.
     
  11. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,925
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I don't disagree, but when the dictionary makes aks a valid pronunciation for ask, we've gone off the rails. Are we really going to see a new word, 'ight' which will mean, are you alright?
     
  12. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    59,329
    Likes Received:
    32,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it falls into popular usage, sure. We've have far, far bigger changes in pronunciation than that and I'm sure you use these comparatively "new" pronunciations every day -- hell, we originally pronounced the "k" and the "g" in the word knight. If you listen to someone speaking Middle English, you'd probably struggle to understand more than a word or two they are saying. Similarly, our entire vowel use has shifted over the years. The examples you gave are tiny in comparison to our history of "going off" much bigger "rails." Hell, we've lost entire letters from our language. Neither of us uses the letters thorn or eth or ash anymore.
     
  13. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,925
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Thorn ? still a valid word.
    Eth? As in methyl or ethics?
    Ash, as in rash, bash, mash, sash?

    Not sure what you mean by those.

    Sure, language evolves. I've no disagreement with that. But, what word shall we use to mean nowadays, since anymore has taken that over?
     
  14. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,617
    Likes Received:
    1,533
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Blasphemy! May they burn in hell.
     
  15. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    59,329
    Likes Received:
    32,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh, no, I'm not talking about the words thorn, eth, and ash. I'm talking about the letters. They were originally letters in the English language. They are part of about half a dozen letters that we later ditched. Both "nowadays" and "anymore" are still in use, though with slightly different usage from one another. There's overlap, but they have different uses. And yes, language evolves, and it may evolve in a direction where "aks" becomes the popular pronunciation of the word ask or where we no longer pronounce the "l" in alright. How would that be any different from no longer pronouncing the "k" and "g" in the word knight, as our ancestors did?
     
  16. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,925
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    In what world are you living where T, H, O, R or N are no longer in use?

    Nobody eats out at restaurants anymore.
    Anymore, I always go out to a restaurant.

    One is correct, one isn't. It's that simple, really. Why have grammar rules at all?
     
  17. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    59,329
    Likes Received:
    32,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not the individual letters T, H, O, R and N. The letter thorn. It looked like a vertical stick with a triangle attached to it (sometimes rounded to look more like a "p" where the rounded part was lowered down to the middle. It was an English letter. It isn't anymore. I can think of around half a dozen English letters that no longer exist. That's just one of the best examples.

    I literally just said the words have different usages.
     
  18. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,925
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Ok - misunderstood you. Yes, language changes. I've acknowledged that.

    Do you think every change to the language is because people got dumb and forgot which words to use, so they started confiscating other words because they didn't know the right word?

    Also, you'll never convince me that AKS is a valid way to say ask. All that does is validate illiteracy. Is ask a hard word to pronounce?
     
  19. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    59,329
    Likes Received:
    32,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You've selectively acknowledged that, but you ignore this fact when it comes to other potential changes.

    No. That seems to be the assumption only held by those who oppose future changes . . . though they are fine with the changes they've adopted. "Aks" is somehow ignorant and illiterate despite the fact that they've adopted much bigger language changes without a second thought.

    And older English speakers would have said the same thing about how you pronounced words like "knight" and "through." There's no difference.
     
  20. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,925
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    A two minute google search suggests otherwise. Knight was a new word, replacing 'Cniht', which meant household retainer or servant.

    Meh - either way, that change made the language more efficient, which is a good thing. The Chinese are good at math, because all of their words for numbers are a single syllable, so it's easier to retain in short-term memory.

    Going from preventive to preventative, or regardless to irregardless, makes the language less efficient. Bad goal.

    And aks is a new pronunciation precisely because the uneducated, who didn't know any better, passed it down to their children. Another bad reason for changing things.
     
  21. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    59,329
    Likes Received:
    32,694
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The word knight existed in middle English. The K and G were both pronounced. Also, I should point out that standardized spelling is a fairly modern invention. You can go and read some of the classics of Middle English literature, such as Chaucer, and find the same word spelled several different ways in the same work.

    Yet you complain about shortening other words, such as shortening "alright". That makes no sense.

    Again, none of these changes are any different from changes we've had in the past and that you, yourself, have adopted without question. Saying out of one side of your mouth that language changes and saying out of the other that only certain changes are okay is nonsensical.
     
  22. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,925
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I'll ponder on this. I don't like being logically inconsistent, so you've given me something to think about.
     
    yardmeat likes this.
  23. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I personally just dislike any two or more words that mean exactly the same thing.

    Cease and desist are two more examples.
     
  24. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,925
    Likes Received:
    13,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I'm a fan of synonyms. I hate when they are used in the same sentence. This big giant balloon.
     
  25. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess we are all different. English has been influenced by so many languages that synonyms are unavoidable.
    I speak Dutch and Swedish and I don’t see nearly as many synonyms.
     

Share This Page