Poll: Irregardless >:(

[infohippie]

"Irregardless" makes me twitch. I want to shout at anyone who uses it. Same goes for greengrocer's apostrophes, "your" rather than "you're" and several other common grammatical mistakes. Grammar's really not that hard, I don't know why people have so much trouble with it.

 

[GingieAle]

Wow. Not only does it sound absolutely retarded, but it makes no fucking sense. Normally I would totally overreact to that but I'm a little tired right now.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

haha oh how i love annoying the grammar nazi's...

grammar is the one thing i love trolling on 24/7, so yes, i think i shall add that word to my trollcabulary

i've heard it used before, but couldn't give two shits

A) English/literature as subjects bore/annoy me to death, so i just ignore them

B) Popularity of use >>>> grammatically correct

 

[AngelSword]

It's bad, though it doesn't nearly come close to the irritation I feel when I hear a third i in the word, "mischievous." >_<

CAPTCHA: Deveryno Foil
"The Case Files of Deveryno Foil: Fantasy Detective"

 

[sir.rutthed]

It does annoy me. Not as much as "for all intensive purposes", but it does annoy me.

I think you mean "for all intents and purposes", which makes moderately more sense.


OT: Ya, bothers the piss out of me. That "word" needs to die in a grammatical fire.

 

[Canid117]

Not really.

It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is a real word since people use it, just like google. I don't use it because its not what people think it means. But I'm also strange in that I use nauseous and nauseated correctly.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

It really bugs the hell out of me when people say that but you know what? There are other words/ phrases that make me angrier.

Same Difference
Could care less
never the less
stole*
Bamma*

The last two I feel warrant an explanation: Stole(pronounced as you see it) and Bamma (pronounced Bam-ma) were both common terms used in the middle school I went to. 'Stole' basically was used in place of the words 'hit' or 'punched' and I just think it sounded retarded from the first time I heard it and even now. Bamma was used to describe people in place of words like 'asshole', '*****' and such. Another one that I've always thought was just stupid. Then again, my middle school sucked. Parkland Panthers? More like Parkland Primitives.

edit: A video posted on the top of page 2 reminded me about the word 'guestimate'. A word my dad uses all the time which bugs the HELL out of me.

 

[DirgeNovak]

haha oh how i love annoying the grammar nazi's...

Stop putting apostrophes to indicate plural! Es lebe unser Führer!

OT: Irregardless is annoying, but I wholeheartedly agree with dex-dex on "I could care less". This one actually pisses me off.

 

[Lazarus Long]

I could care less. A whole lot less. The one that sets my teeth on edge is "a myriad of," especially from people who make their living building English sentences.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's the word "irregardless".

Why? Because it's clearly not a real word! It doesn't make any sense!

The prefix "ir-" clearly means "not", like how "irrelevant" means "not relevant". But "regardless" means "without regard to", so "irregardless" means "not without regard to". It's a blatant double-negative, and it baffles me how anyone can stomach such a grotesque bastardization.

However, it's coming into common usage, which brings me to the discussion. I use improper English words, like "ain't", myself, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the ins-and-outs of grammar and punctuation. So what do you think? Does common usage supersede grammatical rules, or is wrong wrong, regardless (or "irregardless", as the case may be) of common practice?

PREPARE FOR WALL OF TEXT
(I promise it's worth reading if you actually have strong feelings either way on this topic)

(1) Proper and improper are socioeconomic designators with regard to language. Language itself gives us no metric for what is proper or improper.
(1a) "Ain't", for instance, is a perfectly fine word. I've yet to hear any argument against its use with a linguistic reason given, not even a bad argument with a bad reason, and I'm doubtful that such an argument even exists to be made.

(2) Prefixes don't necessarily have to "mean" things. I know you were taught this in school and I'm very sorry that you were lied to. Prefixes only seem to mean independent things because a lot of the words bearing them have some similarity in meaning. While English tends to be relatively regular about this and some languages are downright dictatorial, there are plenty of languages with prefixes that change the meaning of roots they're attached to so wildly that it's not even possible to give a "meaning" for the prefix (see Russian derivational verbal morphology).

(3) Deriving a word that means the same thing as the word it's derived from is not at all uncommon. There are plenty of words in common usage today that were derived in just this way.

(4) The lack of "logic" in "double negatives" is a product of relatively recent commentary on language by amateurs with little actual experience in what they're talking about. A vast number of languages use "double negatives" for simple negation everywhere (French when negating objects "He didn't meet nobody", Russian when negating any noun "Nobody didn't go nowhere"). The idea that two linguistic negatives make a positive grew out of the development of formal logic and is based on a mistaken notion that words with negative polarity can be perfectly modeled with the formal negative.

So no, I don't have a problem with it. And if you do, you should recognise that your problem with it has no linguistic justification. As such, any problem you have with it is really just a problem you have with the sort of people who use it (similar to "ain't").

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

It's like using the word "bigot", every human being falls under that word. so a double neggie.

Did you seriously just call improper use of the word bigot a double negative? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's the word "irregardless".

Why? Because it's clearly not a real word! It doesn't make any sense!

The prefix "ir-" clearly means "not", like how "irrelevant" means "not relevant". But "regardless" means "without regard to", so "irregardless" means "not without regard to". It's a blatant double-negative, and it baffles me how anyone can stomach such a grotesque bastardization.

However, it's coming into common usage, which brings me to the discussion. I use improper English words, like "ain't", myself, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the ins-and-outs of grammar and punctuation. So what do you think? Does common usage supersede grammatical rules, or is wrong wrong, regardless (or "irregardless", as the case may be) of common practice?

PREPARE FOR WALL OF TEXT
(I promise it's worth reading if you actually have strong feelings either way on this topic)

(1) Proper and improper are socioeconomic designators. Language itself gives us no metric for what is proper or improper.
(1a) "Ain't", for instance, is a perfectly fine word. I've yet to hear any argument against its use with a linguistic reason given, not even a bad argument with a bad reason, and I'm doubtful that such an argument even exists to be made.

(2) Prefixes don't necessarily have to "mean" things. I know you were taught this in school and I'm very sorry that you were lied to. Prefixes only seem to mean independent things because a lot of the words bearing them have some similarity in meaning. While English tends to be relatively regular about this and some languages are downright dictatorial, there are plenty of languages with prefixes that change the meaning of roots they're attached to so wildly that it's not even possible to give a "meaning" for the prefix (see Russian derivational verbal morphology).

(3) Deriving a word that means the same thing as the word it's derived from is not at all uncommon. There are plenty of words in common usage today that were derived in just this way.

(4) The lack of "logic" in "double negatives" is a product of relatively recent commentary on language by amateurs with little actual experience in what they're talking about. A vast number of languages use "double negatives" for simple negation everywhere (French when negating objects "He didn't meet nobody", Russian when negating any noun "Nobody didn't go nowhere"). The idea that two linguistic negatives make a positive grew out of the development of formal logic and is based on a mistaken notion that words with negative polarity can be perfectly modeled with the formal negative.

So no, I don't have a problem with it. And if you do, you should recognise that your problem with it has no linguistic justification. As such, any problem you have with it is really just a problem you have with the sort of people who use it (similar to "ain't").

1) Prefixes are a staple of Latin, one of the heaviest influences on the English language. They do have meaning. If they do not, as you are suggesting the "ir" in "irregardless" does, then they should be chucked to avoid redundancy, as redundant texts are often quite boring.

2) I agree that double negatives do have some level of utility, as they can be used stylistically, but when they are used unintentionally to denote something that is the opposite of what was meant to be said, that is an error. For instance, "This is not uncommon" is fine when one is trying to say that something isn't rare. However, many people say "I didn't do nothing" and the like, which is the opposite of what they intended to say, and therefore an error. Even if you would argue that "I didn't do nothing" and "I didn't do anything" mean the same thing, people will not perceive it as being that way, making it a social faux pas.

3) Language evolves. Deal with it and stop being such a grammar hipster.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Spoiler: Irregardless of how you feel on the word, people *are* going to us it.

OT: Meh, I'm not too much a a grammar nazi. So long as they get their point across, the language has done it's point. We all have our peeves though, so I can understand some people just hating it ("Same Difference" makes no sense when you're trying to say two things are similar!).

P.S. I got a crazy case of deja vu when I was writing this post.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

haha oh how i love annoying the grammar nazi's...

Stop putting apostrophes to indicate plural! Es lebe unser Führer!

OT: Irregardless is annoying, but I wholeheartedly agree with dex-dex on "I could care less". This one actually pisses me off.

Nie! Ich werde immer kampfen!

i's will'z dooo's how's i's wish's!

 

[SenorNemo]

Pfft, you silly, silly prescriptivists. Being a historical linguistics geek makes you a bit of a Nietzschian towards "proper" grammar. In my case, anyway. Still, though I agree with the "so long as they get the point across" people, you'll never catch me using "irregardless" ^_^

 

[Averant]

It does annoy me. Not as much as "for all intensive purposes", but it does annoy me.

Shit, ninja'd. Oh well.

Irregardless doesn't really make sense, it's sort of like the whole "same difference" thing that I hear more often than I'd like. I wish it wouldn't exist.

Actually, same difference does make a sort of sense. My dad always says "a difference that makes no difference, IS no difference." Implying, of course, that said difference isn't.

"Same difference" half makes sense because it's saying that there is more than one difference, but they both have the same amount of difference. I'm not going to give you an example, cause damned if I can think of one now.

OT: Irregardless = Baaaaad. Damn grammar allies... My sister actually hates repetitive acronymical names, though. eg, DSW Shoe Warehouse = David's Shoe Warehouse Shoe Warehouse. Or, PIN number = Personal Identification Number Number. And ATM machine. And so on, and so forth.

 

[PorkChopXpress]

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/192/3/5/Grammar_Nazis____The_Motivator_by_ZlayaHozyayka.jpg

 

[Veylon]

Irregardless? I always figured the 'i' out in front popped into being because the word feels like it needs to start with a vowel to sound proper.

As for grammatical rules and wrongness.... I think it's worth pointing out that every word ever was made up. The rules describe common usage, they don't define it. Pedantry without a solid foundation is meaningless.

 

[Super Toast]

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.