6 ms·

I was frequently pushed and challenged by excellent professors who had true passion for their subjects I'm paying $47,336 to go to a private institution and wi

I was frequently pushed and challenged by excellent professors who had true passion for their subjects I'm paying $47,336 to go to a private institution and wish this was true. Internal politics and tenure have ensured friends of department chairs have gotten the jobs irregardless of teaching ability, skill, research, knowledge in the subject area..

markdown 12y ago
OT: > irregardless regardless is fine.
- benihana 12y ago
  so is irregardless. Can I ask why you take the time to correct someone when it was perfectly clear what the intent of the sentence was?
  - jdnier 12y ago
    No, not really. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
  - icebraining 12y ago
    As a non-native speaker, I like when people correct me; it makes me sad to see them downvoted. On the other hand, it could be argued that since I already write well enough to be understood, I should disregard further improvements, but I just can't agree with that.
  - rifung 12y ago
    Why wouldn't you want to help the person improve his/her English?
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      Because it isn't an improvement, much like how getting someone who spells it 'color' to spell the word 'colour' or vice-versa.
      - vacri 12y ago
        'colo[u]r' is merely a spelling difference. 'irregardless' is a double-negative to some people, and not to others. It's an ambiguous word.
        cbd1984 12y ago
        "Irregardless" isn't ambiguous, either. Everyone knows what it means. The debate is over whether it should be in the language, in a moral sense, which is different.
        vacri 12y ago
        No, everyone doesn't 'know what it means', not without additional mental parsing. Myself, among many others, read it first as a double-negative, then have to double-take it and reinterpret it. Irrespective, irreducable, irrecoverable, irreconcilable, irrelevant, irreligious, irrefutable - irregardless stands out like a sore thumb. Or should I say 'irreinterpret it'? After all, you would 'know what I meant' if I wrote that. Ambiguity is fine if you're writing for poetic effect, but if you're trying to get a point across, it should be minimised.
        thizzbuzz 12y ago
        It stands out because "regardless" and "irregardless" are adverbs, while the others you listed are all adjectives. And it does fit the pattern of negating the root morpheme.
        DanBC 12y ago
        Wait, are you really sYing that when you see "irregardless" that your first response is not "that's an error and they mean regardless[1]" but "they mean regardless but negated so regard but that doesn't make sense so they actually mean regardless"? [1] why not irregard instead of regardless?
  - markdown 12y ago
    I live in a post-colonial country where English is the official language but 90% of the population have another language as their mother-tongue. There is therefore a lot of "broken" english spoken, and I guess I'm just used to correcting people (and being corrected myself). Irregardless is one of those words that is becoming OK to say just because so many people use it. Language adapts and therefore English is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but I'd prefer if the opposite were true. A statement in a programming language means the same regardless of the education-level, ethnicity, or social status of the reader. I wish the same were true for English. Instead we have nonsense like Biweekly, which may refer to an event that occurs either twice weekly or once every two weeks. Why should it mean the latter when we have fortnightly for that? ---- Anyway, I like to correct people (in as polite a manner as possible) because I like being corrected myself.
    - resu_nimda 12y ago
      A statement in a programming language means the same regardless of the education-level, ethnicity, or social status of the reader. I wish the same were true for English. That would make English very boring and dry. What of poetry and evocative prose? Natural languages and programming languages serve very different purposes, despite their similarities. Natural languages, since their inception, have been subjective reflections of people, emotions, cultures, points in time. What you wish for isn't even possible, due to the fact that different people will always have the potential to interpret things differently, based on their genetic predispositions and life experiences. If we tried to make languages more prescriptive, we wouldn't end up with some golden era where everybody communicates amazingly with each other, it would be more like 1984 where the potential for creativity and emotional expressivity has been largely diminished. --- Edit: I do understand the point, and of course I try to use words "properly" most of the time. There is a difference between inventing new constructs and usages in order to express something, and just simply being "wrong." E.g. mixing up "your" and "you're" is a pretty cut-and-dried error. But, at the end of the day, all the rules are totally subjectively made up, and their only true purpose is to make it easier for people to understand each other, so if you can accomplish that, the rules don't actually matter.
      - 12y ago
- sneak 12y ago
  > and wish this was true. *were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood
  - pervycreeper 12y ago
    Using the conditional mood that way is common in American English. Hardly a strict error.
    - dfar1 12y ago
      When expressing a wish, use "were".
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3038 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3038
- ehrman 12y ago
  Blame his professors.

markdown 12y ago

OT: > irregardless regardless is fine.

benihana 12y ago
so is irregardless. Can I ask why you take the time to correct someone when it was perfectly clear what the intent of the sentence was?
- jdnier 12y ago
  No, not really. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
- icebraining 12y ago
  As a non-native speaker, I like when people correct me; it makes me sad to see them downvoted. On the other hand, it could be argued that since I already write well enough to be understood, I should disregard further improvements, but I just can't agree with that.
- rifung 12y ago
  Why wouldn't you want to help the person improve his/her English?
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    Because it isn't an improvement, much like how getting someone who spells it 'color' to spell the word 'colour' or vice-versa.
    - vacri 12y ago
      'colo[u]r' is merely a spelling difference. 'irregardless' is a double-negative to some people, and not to others. It's an ambiguous word.
      - cbd1984 12y ago
        "Irregardless" isn't ambiguous, either. Everyone knows what it means. The debate is over whether it should be in the language, in a moral sense, which is different.
        vacri 12y ago
        No, everyone doesn't 'know what it means', not without additional mental parsing. Myself, among many others, read it first as a double-negative, then have to double-take it and reinterpret it. Irrespective, irreducable, irrecoverable, irreconcilable, irrelevant, irreligious, irrefutable - irregardless stands out like a sore thumb. Or should I say 'irreinterpret it'? After all, you would 'know what I meant' if I wrote that. Ambiguity is fine if you're writing for poetic effect, but if you're trying to get a point across, it should be minimised.
        thizzbuzz 12y ago
        It stands out because "regardless" and "irregardless" are adverbs, while the others you listed are all adjectives. And it does fit the pattern of negating the root morpheme.
        DanBC 12y ago
        Wait, are you really sYing that when you see "irregardless" that your first response is not "that's an error and they mean regardless[1]" but "they mean regardless but negated so regard but that doesn't make sense so they actually mean regardless"? [1] why not irregard instead of regardless?
- markdown 12y ago
  I live in a post-colonial country where English is the official language but 90% of the population have another language as their mother-tongue. There is therefore a lot of "broken" english spoken, and I guess I'm just used to correcting people (and being corrected myself). Irregardless is one of those words that is becoming OK to say just because so many people use it. Language adapts and therefore English is descriptive rather than prescriptive, but I'd prefer if the opposite were true. A statement in a programming language means the same regardless of the education-level, ethnicity, or social status of the reader. I wish the same were true for English. Instead we have nonsense like Biweekly, which may refer to an event that occurs either twice weekly or once every two weeks. Why should it mean the latter when we have fortnightly for that? ---- Anyway, I like to correct people (in as polite a manner as possible) because I like being corrected myself.
  - resu_nimda 12y ago
    A statement in a programming language means the same regardless of the education-level, ethnicity, or social status of the reader. I wish the same were true for English. That would make English very boring and dry. What of poetry and evocative prose? Natural languages and programming languages serve very different purposes, despite their similarities. Natural languages, since their inception, have been subjective reflections of people, emotions, cultures, points in time. What you wish for isn't even possible, due to the fact that different people will always have the potential to interpret things differently, based on their genetic predispositions and life experiences. If we tried to make languages more prescriptive, we wouldn't end up with some golden era where everybody communicates amazingly with each other, it would be more like 1984 where the potential for creativity and emotional expressivity has been largely diminished. --- Edit: I do understand the point, and of course I try to use words "properly" most of the time. There is a difference between inventing new constructs and usages in order to express something, and just simply being "wrong." E.g. mixing up "your" and "you're" is a pretty cut-and-dried error. But, at the end of the day, all the rules are totally subjectively made up, and their only true purpose is to make it easier for people to understand each other, so if you can accomplish that, the rules don't actually matter.
    - 12y ago
sneak 12y ago
> and wish this was true. *were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjunctive_mood
- pervycreeper 12y ago
  Using the conditional mood that way is common in American English. Hardly a strict error.
  - dfar1 12y ago
    When expressing a wish, use "were".
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3038 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3038
ehrman 12y ago
Blame his professors.