5 ms·

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?
        vacri 12y ago
        "that's an error and they mean regardless" = "additional mental parsing"
        bane 12y ago
        Yet astonishingly you are one of the people who knew what it meant. Also, most English dialects don't strictly follow double-negation rules. I know this drives non-native speakers crazy, but you'll get over it with enough practice.
        vacri 12y ago
        I think you missed my point - perhaps you should irreinterpret my comment.
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

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?
        vacri 12y ago
        "that's an error and they mean regardless" = "additional mental parsing"
      - bane 12y ago
        Yet astonishingly you are one of the people who knew what it meant. Also, most English dialects don't strictly follow double-negation rules. I know this drives non-native speakers crazy, but you'll get over it with enough practice.
        vacri 12y ago
        I think you missed my point - perhaps you should irreinterpret my comment.

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