How long until the 'Coz' becomes an official word?
I see it frequently these days. A lot of people using it instead of "because."
How long until the 'Coz' becomes an official word?
I see it frequently these days. A lot of people using it instead of "because."
At least with regard to US English, there is no 'official' list of words, or any group authorized to determine 'official' words.
Some people say when it appears in a dictionary (of which there are many, and they do not all contain the same word list).
And there's a difference between formal and informal speech, with what is or is not considered acceptable varying widely between formal and informal, and in various contexts of formal speech.
Is 'irregardless' an official word? My English and history profs would have said 'no' but my spellchecker says 'yes'. :-)
At least in US English, it's a word if it's a) understood to convey a meaning; b) accepted by the hearer/reader in a specific context. And I'd say (b) is of importance only for formal communication.
Now, French is an entirely different matter (as one example). See: Académie Française
irregardless'
I are reguardless. re-guardless is guardless over and over. (guardless, then it happens again and you are re guardless). When you have a Guard someone (the guard) is guarding you. If your guard is not there, then you are guardless. So irreguardless is easy to figure out.
Some people say when it appears in a dictionary (of which there are many, and they do not all contain the same word list).
And then you get into differences between abridged and unabridged dictionaries.
ETA: As for it actually showing up in US based dictionaries, my understanding is that's driven largely by it appearing in print.
Is 'irregardless' an official word? My English and history profs would have said 'no' but my spellchecker says 'yes'. :-)
From an NPR article on the subject:
Merriam-Webster raised the hackles of stodgy grammarians last week when it affirmed the lexical veracity of "irregardless."
The word's definition, when reading it, would seem to be: without without regard.
"Irregardless is included in our dictionary because it has been in widespread and near-constant use since 1795," the dictionary's staff wrote in a "Words of the Week" roundup on Friday. "We do not make the English language, we merely record it."
Merriam-Webster defines irregardless as "nonstandard" but meaning the same as "regardless." "Many people find irregardless to be a nonsensical word, as the ir- prefix usually functions to indicates negation; however, in this case it appears to function as an intensifier," the dictionary writes.
"It's not a real word. I don't care what the dictionary says," responds author Michelle Ray, who teaches English in Silver Spring, Md.
"You say 'regardless.' Regardless of the fact," she tells NPR's Morning Edition. "Irregardless means not regardless. And that's not what you're trying to say at all. So why, in what context, would irregardless make sense? I can't understand it."
I can't understand it.
'Flammable' and 'Inflammable' might make her head explode. (cue comments that English is one seriously f-cked up language).
'Flammable' and 'Inflammable' might make her head explode.
But those have different meanings.
Flammable means it can burn, like wood.
Inflammable means it can burst into flames by itself, like unstable chemicals.
Irregardless is basically a double negative. So the "ir" should undo the "less" and make it "regard" which isn't what the speaker means. But you're right, that's English (or the improper use of it becoming the norm).
Flammable means it can burn, like wood.
Inflammable means it can burst into flames by itself, like unstable chemicals.
Merriam-Webster says otherwise.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/flammable-or-inflammable
"When cooking over a gas stove, avoid wearing loose, (flammable/inflammable) clothing that could catch fire easily." Which word is correct: flammable or inflammable?
Trick question: both flammable and inflammable are correct, as they both mean "capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly." This makes no sense to the Modern English speaker. In English, we think of in- as a prefix that means "not": inactive means "not active," inconclusive means "not conclusive," inconsiderate means "not considerate." Therefore, inflammable should mean "not flammable."
The Latin Inflammare
That would make sense—if inflammable had started out as an English word. We get inflammable from the Latin verb inflammare, which combines flammare ("to catch fire") with a Latin prefix in-, which means "to cause to." This in- shows up occasionally in English words, though we only tend to notice it when the in- word is placed next to its root word for comparison: impassive and passive, irradiated and radiated, inflame and flame. Inflammable came into English in the early 1600s.
Things were fine until 1813, when a scholar translating a Latin text coined the English word flammable from the Latin flammare, and now we had a problem: two words that look like antonyms but are actually synonyms. There has been confusion between the two words ever since.
The True Opposite of Inflammable
What do you do? To avoid confusion, choose flammable when you are referring to something that catches fire and burns easily, and use the relatively recent nonflammable when referring to something that doesn't catch fire and burn easily. Our files indicate that use of flammable and nonflammable has increased in print over the last few decades, while use of inflammable has decreased.
Trick question: both flammable and inflammable are correct, as they both mean "capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly."
I don't agree. I'd light a match outside a truck that had "flammable contents" written on it, but not one that had "inflammable" on it.
So maybe "inflammable" was the original word for what "flammable" is now, but they have different connotative meanings today.
I don't agree. I'd light a match outside a truck that had "flammable contents" written on it, but not one that had "inflammable" on it.
By your definition, "Inflammable means it can burst into flames by itself, like unstable chemicals", lighting the match or not lighting the match wouldn't make any difference either way.
If it requires an ignition source, that is very much not bursting into flames by itself.
The modern connotation of inflammable is basically just "very flammable"
however, in this case it appears to function as an intensifier,"
Also in other double negative usages, such as the song lyric, "I can't get no satisfaction."
Hmm,
I've seen it too, but always like this:
coz (used for addressing a cousin)
For "because" I've seen it only so: 'cause
HM.
coz (used for addressing a cousin)
That's usually 'cuz' for cousin, at least in the American Midwest and south.
Hmm,
I've seen it too, but always like this:coz (used for addressing a cousin)
When I've seen that in writing in the US it's been cuz not coz for cousin.
Interesting, I found the 'coz' version in two online dictionaries (de.pons.com, dict.cc) and looked no further.
HM.
Interesting, I found the 'coz' version in two online dictionaries (de.pons.com, dict.cc)
Both of which appear to be based in Germany, not US centric dictionaries.
And the US pronunciation when spoken would be better reflected by cuz rather than coz.
In British English it's spelt 'cos'. It's even in the Oxford English Dictionary, listed as informal. With the exponential growth of text messaging, I suspect it's rather common.
AJ
How long until the 'Coz' becomes an official word?
I see it frequently these days. A lot of people using it instead of "because."
I have seen "Coz" used as abbreviation for Cousin. I have a forty + year old book of "Henry V" by Shakespear that uses that term just before Henry V begins his "Saint Crispin's Day Speach"
The informal abbreviation I have seen for Because is "cause" or perhaps 'cause; mostly in dialog.