6 ms·
Like it or not, irregardless is here to stay. Languages change, mispellings become the correct way to spell things, words become their own antonyms, and a lot o
by ehsanu1 13y ago
Like it or not, irregardless is here to stay. Languages change, mispellings become the correct way to spell things, words become their own antonyms, and a lot of other very strange things. Embrace it!
- swalkergibson 13y agoI reject your implication. Just because a lot of people use it does not make it grammatically accurate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless
- JangoSteve 13y ago> Just because a lot of people use it does not make it grammatically accurate. Actually, that's exactly what it does... over time. Where exactly do you think our language, as it exists today, came from?
- ds_ 13y agoAn interesting read on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/The-Unfolding-Language-Evolutionary-Invention/dp/0805080120 http://www.amazon.com/The-Unfolding-Language-Evolutionary-In...
- swalkergibson 13y agoOf course language evolves, but a double-negative is a double-negative, no matter how you slice it. Do you have another example of a single word that is a double-negative?
- nekopa 13y agoUnless?
- bicknergseng 13y agoOh snap.
- testing12341234 13y agoAnd yet one of the father's of written modern English, Chaucer himself often used double negatives [0]. ex: "Ther nas no man no wher so vertuous" ("There never was no man nowhere so virtuous") "He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde / In all his lyf unto no maner wight" ("He never yet no vileness didn't say / In all his life to no manner of man"). The modern English language (written and spoken) has been in constant flux for the last 600+ years. What was once required is now antiquated, and what was once verboten is now required. At this moment in time, double negatives are frowned upon. However, that may change in the future, and it's possible that irregardless is the start of a new set of changes in the language. [0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative
- dragonwriter 13y ago> And yet one of the father's of written modern English, Chaucer himself often used double negatives [0]. It's worth noting that neither of your examples has a double negative. Triple negative (the second possibly quadruple), sure, but not double. > At this moment in time, double negatives are frowned upon. I don't know that there's really a shift in time with the double negative, its a stylistic rule, and, much like the Pirate Code, stylistic rules in English are more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. Or, looked at another way, more like training wheels.
- testing12341234 13y agoGuidelines indeed. For reference, here is an example of a double negative from the Prologue to the Canterbury Tales: Nowher so bisy a man as he ther nas [0] (Nowhere so busy a man as he there none) [0] http://www.bartleby.com/40/0102.html http://www.bartleby.com/40/0102.html line 321
- 3minus1 13y ago@swalkergibson flammable and inflammable both mean the same thing.
- swalkergibson 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability#Flammable_vs._inflammable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flammability#Flammable_vs._infl...
- krsunny 13y agoWelcome to Hacker News, home of the worlds largest contrarian user base.
- ricardobeat 13y agoThat link, and the mere fact it exists, contradicts your point. Irregardless is a word [...] Irregardless, it's not about being grammatically correct, but being socially accepted and understood; just like slang and broken grammar that develops in subcultures, it ain't no goin anywhere!
- swalkergibson 13y agoSo why would you want to use it? What is the point of saying irregardless vis-a-vis irrespective or regardless?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ahallock 13y agoIt's just wrong. Why embrace things that don't make sense? Are we embracing the Idiocracy?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- typeslower 13y agoIs it fair to call this willful ignorance?