Mirriam-Webster has officially recognized "irregardless" as a word.
I'm not surprised as they were one of the first to accept decimated as being a direct equivalent to, and replacement for, devastated.
I'm not surprised as they were one of the first to accept decimated as being a direct equivalent to, and replacement for, devastated.
Only 1 in 10 will get the original source of the word though.
Only 1 in 10 will get the original source of the word though.
True. That's as bad as there being only 10 types of people who understand binary counting - those that do and those that don't.
Only 1 in 10 will get the original source of the word though.
Maybe in Merry 'ol England (i.e. using the Queen's English), but here in the states, the vast majority of uses I've seen over the last several decades are equivalent to 'devastate'. If it was ONLY used for 'reduce by one tenth', the word would only rarely be used, yet the word is fairly commonly used to describe a wide variety of disasters.
Um, big typo? I think you meant decimate.
Maybe in Merry 'ol England (i.e. using the Queen's English), but here in the states, the vast majority of uses I've seen over the last several decades are equivalent to 'devastate'. If it was ONLY used for 'reduce by one tenth', the word would only rarely be used, yet the word is fairly commonly used to describe a wide variety of disasters.
'decimate'
If a mate has nine other spouses, you are a deci mate.
(Deci is one tenth.)
(Deci is one tenth.)
Deci is a tenth as in one fifth of one half. For the 10th whole unit the word is deca, as in decathlon is 10 events.
(Fun to nitpick the nitpicker.)
My nits can beat up your nits. :)
That's because you have uncontrolled nits and I have mine are better behaved.
My nits can beat up your nits. :)
My gnoshes will eat your nits for lunch, and still have time for a nap.
I read what Crumbly said wrong.
Agreed about most recent usages, but those usages are wrong.
Strangely, perhaps, I find devastate to be a stronger word that decimate.
No, I think CW got it right. Most recent usages of 'decimate' equate to 'devastate'.
Agreed about most recent usages, but those usages are wrong.
Except that it's the common usage and not any authority that defines what is right and what is wrong.
Languages change. Get over it.
Agreed about most recent usages, but those usages are wrong.
Look, the usage is actually correct if you follow the logic - decimation was a truly horrible thing; maybe not on a sheer numbers thing, more because of the randomness and the fact that nobody was exempt. But either way, it was considered a terrible thing to happen. Thus 'decimation' was a term for 'a terrible thing' and 'decimate' came to mean 'to cause a terrible outcome' rather than a specific terrible outcome.
Good explanations from you and DS but I think the fact is the wrong usage probably started with some media twit looking for a new word, or not knowing the difference. The sheeple followed.
That's the end of my rant about the all knowing media. D
Good explanations from you and DS but I think the fact is the wrong usage probably started with some media twit looking for a new word, or not knowing the difference.
Quite frankly, if not for the explanation I gave, the term would be completely unknown, since it would refer solely to a practice of the Roman legions. And quite frankly, since that organization is, well, defunct... their practices are largely irrelevant to most.
The interpretation of the term would've shifted long before 'the media' really became a thing, for the term to have survived beyond a type of historical jargon.
There are a lot of companies shedding about 10% of their staff at the moment - I'm sure someone would have revived the term considering how accurate and evocative it would be.
AJ
It wouldn't be, unless they lined up every employee by height and then fired every tenth, no matter what position in the company. If you insist on precise meaning, rather than figurative usage, then you have to stick to precise meaning.
Dictionaries are point-in-time observations of common usage. If people are using the word in that way (or using a collection of phonetic sounds to express an idea), the dictionary will include it eventually.
Languages evolve, and not always in ways of which we approve.
So, let a foreigner to wonder at the world, is it just redundant amalgamation of irregardly and regardless, leading to (posibly incorrect) double negative used for emphasis, or is there some other anomaly?
Nope, no double negative intended.
As generally used and this is reflected in the MW definition, irregardless=regardless. They a synonyms.
Irregardless is a bone head error, but there are enough bone heads out there to shift the language.
regardless
gardless is not having a gard. re gardless is not having a gard again. Like first you move, then you move again, its a remove. If you own one tavern you are a Publican. If you own two or more, you are a Re Publican. And you Go Pee, or maybe GOP.
What does 'rigate' mean? ;-)
The gate on the right rather than the gate on the left.
What does 'rigate' mean? ;-)
Fettuccini. With stripes.
A dry pasta. Not yet "irrigated".
Doesn't 'irradiate' basically mean 'to cause something to radiate' (in the sense that glowing in the dark radiates light)
Doesn't 'irradiate' basically mean 'to cause something to radiate' (in the sense that glowing in the dark radiates light)
More the opposite: to shine a light upon something.
MW says:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irradiate
transitive verb
1a : to affect or treat by radiant energy (such as heat) specifically : to treat by irradiation
b : to cast rays of light upon : illuminate
c : to enlighten intellectually or spiritually
2 : to emit like rays of light : radiate
More the opposite:
People really need to read parentheticals.
Irradiate - to expose something to hard radiation. (hence, to make it glow in the dark, hence make it radiate.)
Irradiate - to expose something to hard radiation. (hence, to make it glow in the dark, hence make it radiate.)
No, to expose something to any kind of radiation/radiant energy and whether the irradiated object radiates after or not is irrelevant.
What about 'radiate' and 'irradiate'?
Irradate is whatever your last date did that infuriated you. ;)
That really irradiates me! ;)
is it just redundant amalgamation of irregardly and regardless
"Irregardless" is a double negative. The "ir-" prefex is negative so add it to a word that is already negative (regardless) and you have a double negative.
"Regardless" means "regard less" or without regard.
Therefore, "irregardless" means without without regard.
"Regardless" means "regard less" or without regard.
There'fore, "irregardless" means without without regard.
What? You want English to be consistent and logical? Where fat chance and slim chance mean the same thing? Canny/uncanny? Thaw/Unthaw/Dethaw?
What? You want English to be consistent and logical?
Good luck with THAT! Herding cats is easier!
Unthaw/Dethaw?
Are those actually words?
Defrost is the only synonym of 'thaw' that I could think of that starts with 'de'...
Don't forget about deplane.
Isn't that what the midget on Fantasy Island used to shout?
No, wait, that was 'zee plane'.
Wasn't 'deplane' the term for unassing your seat on the jet, grabbing your carry-on, and leaving?
Wasn't 'deplane' the term for unassing your seat on the jet, grabbing your carry-on, and leaving?
Yes, getting off the airplane.
George Carlin had a skit with words, one of which was deplane, that was hysterical.
Isn't that what the midget on Fantasy Island used to shout?
No, wait, that was 'zee plane'.
"Zee plain, you motherfuckers, zee plain, zee plain!" ;)
Dat's da ting dat you flies in.
And here I always thought that was de screen door. ;)
And here I always thought that was de screen door. ;)
No, de screen door keeps de flies out on de plain.
"Irregardless" is a double negative. The "ir-" prefex is negative so add it to a word that is already negative (regardless) and you have a double negative.
What I meant, it seems possible that the double negative is instead used for emphasis, seeing how it is used as synonymous to single negative.
For example we do something somewhat similar in Latvian, not quite in the same world, but in a sentence, many worlds could be negated in row just for emphasis of single negation, and it's considered legal and correct even if in at least some of these cases nitpicky logical analysis could find self-contradictory double negatives. Worse, those negative-negative constructions do legally exist too, and it's sometimes tricky to tell apart when it's intended to be double (or triple) negative indeed and when it's just repetitive emphasis, although native speaker in most cases should rather undoubtedly.
For example we do something somewhat similar in Latvian, not quite in the same world, but in a sentence, many worlds could be negated in row just for emphasis of single negation, and it's considered legal and correct even if in at least some of these cases nitpicky logical analysis could find self-contradictory double negatives.
Please, let's not 'negate' any worlds (Thanos style) over a fairly simple word usage. While many languages allow for double negatives, English isn't and has never allowed it (which is why the dictionaries resisted accepting it for so long). But, what I'd prefer (to making them synonyms) is for 'irregardless' to now mean 'regards very much, thank you!' ;)
"Regardless, that's not what I meant."
"Irregardless, that's how I and everyone took it. If you expect to communicate, learn to use English!"
But, what I'd prefer
Do you imagine that the kinds of people who use irregardless care what you would prefer?
Do you imagine that the kinds of people who use irregardless care what you would prefer?
I'd prefer they'd die painful lingering deaths. Not sure if they care, or maybe should care, about that...
What I meant, it seems possible that the double negative is instead used for emphasis,
As usual, Grammar Girl says it better than I ever could:
In Shakespeare's and Chaucer's time, it was normal to use double and triple negatives to add emphasis, and even today, other languages, such as Spanish and French, also use double negatives to add emphasis to the negativity.
Shakespeare also used double negatives. For example, in "As You Like It," Celia says, "I cannot go no further." If "you can go no further" was negative, then "you can't go no further" was even more negative or emphatic.
As usual, Grammar Girl says it better than I ever could:
In Shakespeare's and Chaucer's time, it was normal to use double and triple negatives to add emphasis, and even today,
... (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
Or ... I can't get no DeSatisfaction! Or would that be Irrasatifaction?
There'fore, "irregardless" means without without regard.
And therefore, you meant "There's where the ball should go" as you tee off? It's best not to screw up your your phrasing when lecturing others on word usages. ;)
It's best not to screw up
Fixed the slip-finger typo. My wife was bugging me so I didn't get to edit it before posting.
Fixed the slip-finger typo. My wife was bugging me so I didn't get to edit it before posting.
That's what you get when you're typing while using your fingers for something else. ') Next time, use your tongue, and you won't be tempted to waste time making irrelevant online posts when your attention is needed elsewhere.
"Irregardless" is a double negative. The "ir-" prefex is negative so add it to a word that is already negative (regardless) and you have a double negative.
Just like flammable and inflammable ;-)
AJ
Just like flammable and inflammable ;-)
Except in "in-" in "inflammable" does not mean "not" (non-flammable is the opposite of "flammable."
"Inflammable" should not exist. Someone might light up a cigarette thinking the contents aren't flammable. But that's the English language.
"Inflammable" should not exist. Someone might light up a cigarette thinking the contents aren't flammable. But that's the English language.
As is common in English, the -in prefix alternately means either "not" or "especially so". So "inflammable" doesn't just mean that "it'll burn" but instead means "highly flammable, or likely to burn like a Christmas tree, taking the entire house with it in only a matter of minutes.
In English, you really can't say that a common usage should NOT exist, as there is NO national body that regulates which accepted usages of English ARE or ARE NOT acceptable (like the French do). English is, in the end, 'the People's language' and literary snobs have no effective controlling voice (aside from continually ensuring that dictionaries are the very LAST resource to acknowledge ANY given definition of a word).
In that sense, "dethaw" doesn't mean "refreeze" or even "to manually thaw" but "thawing especially quickly, by natural means". But like most dictionaries, you won't find a single dictionary that acknowledges that definition ... yet.
(like the French do
France tries, but my understanding is that they are having at best limited success.
Alas, the Académie Française determines which French words are 'allowed' (at least in formal books like dictionaries), but has little effect on what words actual Frenchpersons use.
Which is why I said they have at BEST limited success.
Also, I'm not aware of any other nation/language that has something comparable to the Académie Française. Of course that's hardly definitive.
Also, I'm not aware of any other nation/language that has something comparable to the Académie Française. Of course that's hardly definitive.
Now, I'm actually not knowledgeable about the structure, role and mission of Académie Française, so may or not be directly comparable, but both Latvia/Latvian and Lithuania/Lithuanian have language commission as expect organ at the government.
Tasked among other things with accepting or proposing terminology of emerging things and also by writing fines on stores for incomprehensible national language translations of product descriptions -- with are mandatory --, but often done by Russian speakers with next to no actual knowledge of national language.
Speaking about emerging terminology, Lithuanians are much more proactive and successful with new native language worlds for technology, ours much too often reacts only when an anglicanism or two is already become established jargon and then propose some abomination nobody would actually use.
Like, when try to transpose "hardware driver" too literally you get awkward description of rutting, and first proposed translation of copy&paste "clipboard" happened to be rude euphemism for a cunt. Well, it is little more understandable when you realize that the ancient witches siting in the language commission doesn't actually use technology themselves. And they are more excited for getting into court fights over forcing to write name "Otto" in passport with one T because double T supposedly isn't pronounced in Latvian (with is disputable).
"Irregardless" is a double negative. The "ir-" prefex is negative so add it to a word that is already negative (regardless) and you have a double negative.
cf also refutable and irrefutable.
Consistency? Fat chance! ;-)
AJ
also refutable and irrefutable.
No, in that case the "ir-" prefix is the negative.
As adjectives the difference between refutable and irrefutable. is that refutable is able to be refuted, or shown to be false while irrefutable is undeniable; unable to be disproved or refuted.
Mirriam-Webster has officially recognized "irregardless" as a word.
Oh damn! Now society will crumble!
Have they recognized "Futanari" yet?
Have they recognized "Futanari" yet?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/futanari
Not yet apparently.
I think I was in college before I learned that "irregardless" was incorrect. My mother used it. And "druthers." Both of which she may have picked up from Li'l Abner.
Glad to see it recognized; it still "feels" right to me.
Both of which she may have picked up from Li'l Abner.
Now that brings back some memories.
I think I was in college before I learned that "irregardless" was incorrect. My mother used it. And "druthers." Both of which she may have picked up from Li'l Abner.
Once again, you (the proverbial "you") are confusing British English with American English. The Queen's English tends to refute ANY use of double negatives, while American English tends to use it to emphasis extreme cases (i.e. especially so).
So, if you want to argue against the American usage trend, you'll also have to refute Shakespeare as a legitimate source of reference for definitions.
Hmmm... I wasn't clear on time frame. (Like writing a time travel story! Funny!) I meant that I learned it was considered incorrect at that time. As I indicated, I have no problem with it being considered correct, now, just based on "feel." However, some of the points made herein, including yours about adding emphasis, I agree with. That's why I posted the song reference.
How can you be disappointed if you were never appointed in the first place?
Or for that matter, if you've never been gruntled, how can you be disgruntled?
How can you be disappointed if you were never appointed in the first place?
In these cases, 'dis-' doesn't mean NOT, rather it means "unlikely to" (rather than "ir-" alternately meaning "not" or "especially so"). And if you can figure that out, and apply it to any new terms in the future, than you're a better man than I!