5 ms·

that's one of those gotcha words, though, like "inflammable" (contrast w/ "indestructible"), and "denuded".

by ebcode 9y ago

adrianratnapala 9y ago
Do you mean that "irregardless" would have to be one of those gotcha words if it did indeed exist? "Inflammable" is confusing because it sounds like the opposite of "flammable"; but the sad fact of history is that "inflammable" has meant "burnable" for centuries while the synonym "flammable" was made up recently -- so we are stuck with both. But as far as I know, the word "regardless" has been around for ages, and that's fine because it sounds like just what it means: the opposite of "with regard". Whereas "irregardless" should be chucked in the bin as a confusing neologism that sounds like the opposite of what the speaker intends.
- ebcode 9y ago
  The word "irregardless" exists, whether you/I/we want it to or not.[0,1] All I can say is that it is indeed surprising how quickly confusing neologisms that should be chucked in the bin soon become sad facts of history. It's not in the same category as "for all intensive purposes". But that's just the way language evolves. "Intensive" in that case should be "intents and", which, I believe has the same heritage as "clear and present danger", "crimes and misdemeanors", and "cease and desist". All these phrases are redundant lawyer-speak that came about when the law was being translated from Latin to English in the, what, 14th century in England? So, yeah, there are people who want to _sound_ educated, thinking they'll use a high-falutin' phrase like "for all intents and purposes", they get it wrong and say "for all intensive purposes", and instantly reveal themselves as the uneducated person they actually are. (But only if their present company includes an actually educated person, of course.) But rather than passing judgment on uneducated folks for using eggcorns[2], it would be more compassionate to reserve that judgment for the actual content and meaning of their speech, and not the superficial form it takes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/irregardless-real-word-regardless-kory-stamper-education-dictionary-mean-girls-lexicon-merriam-webster-2017-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/irregardless-real-word-regard... [2] http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/ http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/

that's one of those gotcha words, though, like "inflammable" (contrast w/ "indestructible"), and "denuded".

by ebcode 9y ago

that's one of those gotcha words, though, like "inflammable" (contrast w/ "indestructible"), and "denuded".

Do you mean that "irregardless" would have to be one of those gotcha words if it did indeed exist? "Inflammable" is confusing because it sounds like the opposite of "flammable"; but the sad fact of history is that "inflammable" has meant "burnable" for centuries while the synonym "flammable" was made up recently -- so we are stuck with both. But as far as I know, the word "regardless" has been around for ages, and that's fine because it sounds like just what it means: the opposite of "with regard". Whereas "irregardless" should be chucked in the bin as a confusing neologism that sounds like the opposite of what the speaker intends.

ebcode 9y ago
The word "irregardless" exists, whether you/I/we want it to or not.[0,1] All I can say is that it is indeed surprising how quickly confusing neologisms that should be chucked in the bin soon become sad facts of history. It's not in the same category as "for all intensive purposes". But that's just the way language evolves. "Intensive" in that case should be "intents and", which, I believe has the same heritage as "clear and present danger", "crimes and misdemeanors", and "cease and desist". All these phrases are redundant lawyer-speak that came about when the law was being translated from Latin to English in the, what, 14th century in England? So, yeah, there are people who want to _sound_ educated, thinking they'll use a high-falutin' phrase like "for all intents and purposes", they get it wrong and say "for all intensive purposes", and instantly reveal themselves as the uneducated person they actually are. (But only if their present company includes an actually educated person, of course.) But rather than passing judgment on uneducated folks for using eggcorns[2], it would be more compassionate to reserve that judgment for the actual content and meaning of their speech, and not the superficial form it takes. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/irregardless-real-word-regardless-kory-stamper-education-dictionary-mean-girls-lexicon-merriam-webster-2017-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/irregardless-real-word-regard... [2] http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/ http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/