|
FAO: Swamper (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| get nyce |
i studies latin
be that as it may |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| That's the Cambridge dictionary for Dumb Cunts, right? |
|
|
| Jarvmeister |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I, like many other people, will always regard those that use the word irregardless as the inevitable sign that a word became all too common.
To those that understand the structure of language change, have studied grammaticalization and know how the words we use today are derived, there ain't nothing wrong with the use of the adverb irregardless, irregardless of what you think :D
Edit: Curiously, the advent of this word is not recent... here's its frequency on the books scanned by Google.
 |
It is a double negative. Using it makes you look like a bone head. The word, in itself, is illogical. |
|
|
| Jarvmeister |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaw
fixed. Another one I hate, btw. |
OK, not entirely sure you're correct but willing to discuss that.
WORDS and THEM are both plurals, therefore I should use ARE, not IS.
Or so I thought......... |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jarvmeister
OK, not entirely sure you're correct but willing to discuss that.
WORDS and THEM are both plurals, therefore I should use ARE, not IS.
Or so I thought......... |
The subject in that phrase is 'none.' 'Words' is the subject of the first phrase, and 'them' is the object of a preposition.
That one is among the most common grammatical mistakes made by otherwise literate people. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jarvmeister
It is a double negative. Using it makes you look like a bone head. The word, in itself, is illogical. |
It's a shame language isn't subject to whatever logic you're referring to.
French has had for quite a while double negative markers in the same sentence in order to express negation (and it's finally getting rid of the old word) and "Didn't do nothing" is a perfectly grammatical sentence in loads of language - including mine.
Language isn't some sort mathematical system where words retain their meaning generation after generation, and there are too many explanations of what's going on here. The most probable one is that these people may not interpret the suffix -less as a suffix because of extensive use, and need to add up another negative marker. And, perhaps, which would be the coolest possible scenario and is worth being analysed, English is probably changing its structure (yeah, it happens) and is now giving preference to prefixes in this context rather than suffixes.
And there lies the greatest of all ironies: Irregardlessists have a much better understanding of how their language actually works than the smug literati that were told how it should behave. How's that for a twist? |
|
|
| Ang ' ela_ie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Edit: Curiously, the advent of this word is not recent... |
Yes, people have been stupid for quite a while, now. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
Yes, people have been stupid for quite a while, now. |
:stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
Yes, people have been stupid for quite a while, now. |
Actually...
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
Irregardlessists have a much better understanding of how their language actually works than the smug literati that were told how it should behave. How's that for a twist? |
They're anything but stupid... well, they may be stupid, but for reasons other than this one :p |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
The fact that a word is part of a language because it has been used long enough or often enough need not imply that its use should be encouraged.
;) |
|
|
|
|
