HOME | DD
I-am-Britta β Take Pride In Your Language
Published: 2011-08-13 05:02:28 +0000 UTC; Views: 1066; Favourites: 41; Downloads: 5
Redirect to original
Description
This makes me sad for our language. The correct word is REGARDLESS, but I guess someone decided to slap a prefix on it to make it sound more intelligent... but it makes you sound like an idiot.First, let's review our list of English prefixes, specifically negative prefixes. These serve to make a word mean "not" or "opposite of." The following are common negative prefixes:
un-
im-
ir-
in-
il-
dis-
For example, if something is unbelievable, it is not believable. If something is imperfect, it is not perfect. If someone is disrespectful, they are not respectful. The list goes on.
Now let's review the concept of -less, a negative suffix. This suffix is placed at the end of a word, usually a noun, to indicate that a situation is not impacted by a particular consequence mentioned. Take this example: "I can go to the party regardless of what time it starts." What this means is that it doesn't matter what time the party starts; you will be able to make it. Time is not a threat to your arrival.
"Regardless" is a word used to indicate that circumstances don't impact the situation. This effect has already been achieved by the word's suffix. When you add a negative prefix to an already-negated word, you contradict its meaning. Therefore, when you throw the prefix ir- onto the word "regardless" because you think it sounds smart, your prefix and suffix cancel each other out and the word loses its meaning. What you end up with is, of course, "irregardless," which then means that your situation is now bound by consequences. By saying "I can make it to the party irregardless of what time it starts," you're basically saying that time is a limiting factor in your ability to arrive. In other words, you're saying that you can't come due to a time conflict.
It sickens me that this moronic "word" has made it into our dictionaries and no longer triggers the spellcheck. The problem is that words that aren't real are being made real and we sound even dumber than we already do. I have a few British acquaintances who said they don't like Americans because we don't speak "real English" and that we "make up words." Now I have an idea of what they mean by that. No wonder the British don't like us! We add words to our language that aren't words, and we end up sounding like uneducated boobs.
Related content
Comments: 24
Haha, that's a real word fail right there! Yes, American English has quirks like that, but it's not like that many people think, "OMG, this guy is an IDIOT!" every time someone uses that word -- and often times, the people who use that word really aren't idiots anyway. Saying our language is being butchered because of goofs like that is shallow in reason -- just look at all of the awesome words we have that make up for it. The only people that would make that case are the ones that most likely already have a cynical regard for Americans in general anyway.
I find it sad that you actually agree with those British acquaintances (implied with the "No wonder the British don't like us!"). If those Brits accuse Americans of being dumb-apes based purely on the assumption that we sometimes 'make up words' and ruin 'real English' while TOTALLY disregarding our great works of literature and history, they can go build themselves a bridge and jump off of it.
Besides, many countries don't like us because they're secretly jealous of our heritage and success -- they just use our obesity epidemic, unsophisticated diet, our dark history with the Indians, etc. to make them feel better about themselves. The butchering-of-English is just one of their petty arguments people use to place themselves a hypothetical notch higher.
American English has a lot going for it -- people goof some of it up, sure, but 'irregardless' and other such words doesn't weigh down on it all THAT much. The sky isn't going to fall on us because we throw in a couple of nonsensical words. :3
π: 0 β©: 0
THANK YOU! Finally someone understands that.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well then, let's make it a formal word! The English language is full of exceptions to nearly every rule. "I before E... except after C". If a word is in use long enough, and the general public agree on its meaning, then who's to say that it's not proper? Shakespeare, a Brit, basically "invented" (really, made up) over 1000 words. Before him, words like "swagger" weren't in any dictionaries. Now it's heard and used everywhere, and considered a "proper word".
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't consider "swagger" a proper word, and I never will. I weep for the English language.
π: 0 β©: 0
Irregardless is the same a regard, then?
I hate people who can't use the English language properly. It has rules, just like everything else.
π: 0 β©: 1
I really don't know what it's supposed to be. All I know is that the prefix and suffix contradict each other and cancel the meaning of the word.
π: 0 β©: 0
Addicting isn't a word either!!
Just had to say it.
π: 0 β©: 0
your british acquaintances need to get out of their self-centered bubble and step out into the real streets of england, or just about any country with uneducated suburban trash (i'll help you out a bitβall countries) to see that just about all types of people have the potential to speak broken english, spanish, portuguese, or whatever language that originated from one place and migrated to another. brits do not speak perfect english, and disliking an entire group of people on the basis of "we speak better than them" is arrogant as well as stupid. i agree with the whole of your argument, but goodness that last paragraph of yours is so juvenile.
π: 0 β©: 1
The thing is, I don't think this is about colloquial use of language. But American linguists, the people in charge of the language, they are constantly making incorrect uses of English "Official" Like "I could care less" Which doesn't make any sense what so ever and is the exact opposite of what the person saying it is trying to say.
π: 0 β©: 1
the same can be said of English linguists. Where are the statistics, anyway? What documented evidence proves that American linguists make more mistakes than their English counterparts? None, because you're basing this off of stereotypes.
π: 0 β©: 1
I said nothing about mistakes, I said "incorrect uses of English" Whether they were mistakes or not wasn't covered. Merriam-Webster, the official American dictionary frequently adds phrases and words, which according to the rules of the English language, do not make sense. Such as the above example in the stamp: the word in itself is a double negative.
It's nothing to do with stereotypes. Go and look up the origins of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
π: 0 β©: 1
Merriam-Webster recognizes the widespread usage of "irregardless" and includes it into its website under slang, or, as they call it, nonstandard. Its job as a dictionary is the inclusion of "real" words and words which sneak into speech and even works of literature, no matter if it is or isn't incorrect. In fact, the official "irregardless" page [link] suggests that we use "regardless" instead.
π: 0 β©: 0
Although this doesn't bug me, I find the word funny. And what Skuhweer had said, it progresses our language.
And the British have always said we have been ruining their language. I deal with it and say that we have two different languages, British and American, and for the Australians, Australian. Simple.
As much as I am a Grammar Nazi, I'm not totally one. And this doesn't seem to bug me.
π: 0 β©: 0
It is a word recognized by Webster's. The problem is that people use it incorrectly...It's used when regard wouldn't work. Example:
Wrong:
Regard, the car stopped working.
Sure, it makes sense, but not in the way irregardless would.
π: 0 β©: 1
Irregardless can be used in that, but even then, you can say "Regard the car that stopped working", or "Take regard that the car stopped working", though it's true that using "irregardless" would be easier to say/write.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, regard the car has stopped working would be more like take note that the car has stopped working. Irregardless would mean that it was connected to whatever was being talked about previous.
π: 0 β©: 1
On a completely irregardless note, this word actually doesn't bother me as much as it should. It is poorly conceived and a redundancy by default, but it really doesn't bother me. Nor does what the British think of American English bother me.
As for making up words, that's part of how a language stays alive. Sure, some rather ill-advised examples of humanity's sheer dumbiosity in regards to making up words do slip through the cracks, but that's the price to pay for progress, I guess.
π: 0 β©: 1
The word really is pointless though, with it's incorrect meaning (regardless). Some modern slang words do have legitimate meanings, but this one is just stupid, if you ask me. Why not just say "regardless"? It's easier to say/type. It's just inflating an existing word. And when it is used right, you can usually just say "regard".
I guess, in some cases, it can be used right (like in Zium-M's example), but it's not very common when the situation calls for it. I think the word is very often used incorrectly as it's "regardless" meaning.
π: 0 β©: 1
I never said it wasn't pointless; in fact, I called it redundant.
A word like irregardless, while redundant, could prove useful to, say, writers, if used in the correct context. Instead of "With regards to such and such..." it could be shortened to, "Irregardless, such and such is blah blah blah..." which is great for minimalists. And, in some cases, one might find it more aesthetically appealing than the alternative. The problem, of course, being that the traditional and current meaning of 'irregardless' is 'regardless,' and that isn't likely to change any time soon.
Honestly, I think we agree here, at a basic level. It is a pointless word, with few, if any uses. I just don't care if it exists or not; let morons be morons, and so on.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's pretty much what I mean though.
π: 0 β©: 0