4 ms·

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.
      • rofl1234 12y ago
        Everybody knows that it means not (not in regard).