Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: "Irregardless" is now in the dictionary?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,044


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paint_It_Black View Post
    A dedicated student of aesthetics might not agree with you and to be fair there really is no objectively right answer.
    I guess we both can hate on text communication right now - I thought it was clear that was my opinion, but I guess that sentence comes off as rather assertive without intonation.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Transmetropolitan
    Posts
    6,452


    Default

    I don't understand llamas, does slang qualify? because there is some slang in my vocabulary that a lot of people I talk to just wouldn't understand. on the other hand, I think most people I talk to could contextually understand 'genocidal' if I used it in a sentence. I don't think 'genocidal' is meant to be taken literally, and I think most would understand it as extreme hyperbole.
    I wrote a four word letter.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,044


    Default

    That is when it gets iffy. There is a ton of esoteric language that is never and will never be in the dictionary. Are these to be considered words? I consider this something for the individual to decide. It's a very subjective area in general, but especially when we ask, "How many people have to be able to understand a word for it to be considered a word?" I think it's impossible to give a perfect definition for what a word actually is, but I stand by the idea that, if you can use it without worrying about whether or not your audiences will understand you, it's probably a word.

    The important thing is that you manage to get your point across clearly in spoken language, and when writing, you stick to the official words that are in the dictionary - at the very minimum.

    We're not going to get anywhere on "genocidal", as there is no proof as to how many people would understand it. A large poll would have to be conducted, with a definition being decided upon ahead of time. And I'm far too lazy to do that. :P
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Transmetropolitan
    Posts
    6,452


    Default

    Nah, sticking to the dictionary is lame. Slang and made up words for days.

    I'm a little hard pressed to believe that someone could know what genocide means, yet still need genocidal explained to them.
    I wrote a four word letter.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,044


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebDudette View Post
    Nah, sticking to the dictionary is lame. Slang and made up words for days.
    I meant (and stated at least once) that one should stick to the dictionary when writing formally/officially. Otherwise, it's all about communication and getting your point across (as I also stated at least once).

    Unless you'd use slang and made-up words in your CVs/resumes, and be cool with seeing them in world news reports and research studies, I'd venture to say you agree with me.

    I'm a little hard pressed to believe that someone could know what genocide means, yet still need genocidal explained to them.
    Genocide has a definition. What exactly is "genocidal"? Someone who is so racist that they wish to wipe out an entire race? Someone who is an angry person who could snap in a multitude of ways, one of which could be to wipe out an entire race? Someone with severe mental problems who could end up engaging in such with little push? Someone with a strong and slightly insane desire for control and power over others? Someone who is easily swayed by others and is likely to make terrible mistakes they regret? Those who have been involved in committing acts of genocide have fallen into these categories and more. It does not work as a personality trait without considerable elaboration. I concluded that perhaps a person can be "genocidal", as stated earlier in this thread, but I still find it to wishy-washy a word without a definition, and thus would not accept it as a valid adjective for a person's personality (which is how it was being used in the first place and the usage I disagree with).

    That said, if a definition could be coined for it, I wouldn't be opposed to it becoming a word; I just don't think it's likely.

    We can't just take any noun someone can do, add an adjective suffix, and call it a personality adjective. Otherwise I could call someone threatish, conversationy, or car accidentatious. It's not so easy as just saying, "genocide is a word, so genocidal must be, as well."
    Last edited by Llamas; 01-26-2014 at 05:09 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Transmetropolitan
    Posts
    6,452


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    I meant (and stated at least once) that one should stick to the dictionary when writing formally/officially. Otherwise, it's all about communication and getting your point across (as I also stated at least once).

    Unless you'd use slang and made-up words in your CVs/resumes, and be cool with seeing them in world news reports and research studies, I'd venture to say you agree with me.
    Oh right, sorry. I should have paid closer attention.

    I'd look at it the same way people use words like psychopath, or even homicidal. While I don't condone it's usage psychopath doesn't really mean any one thing to most people does it? It's just some hyperbole people throw around, just like homicidal. I think genocidal could certainly mean a couple things, but that's the thing about English, isn't it? Ambiguity, context, all that jazz. I think generally, I could get away with using it in conversation, 'That Sinister kid sure was a weird dude, did you hear all those racists and violent things he said? That guys one bad day away from being genocidal' 'Kim Jong Il declared war and promised the death of all South Koreans, that dude is genocidal'. It's all idle debate to me though, it's a weird thing to say and I wouldn't, but I wouldn't really look twice at someone who did.

    As I think you might have hinted at in the end of your post, 'genocidal acts' would totally make sense to me.
    I wrote a four word letter.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,918


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    Otherwise I could call someone threatish, conversationy, or car accidentatious.
    You could, but why not stick with threatening, conversational and accident-prone? I mean, since these traits already have words it seems silly not to use them.

    Cody, I'm also a fan of using genocidal to describe certain ideologies and organizations. Groups like the KKK and Aryan Nation are genocidal organizations because they are either direct proponents of genocide or, at the very least, proponents of racist ideas that can be used as precursors for genocide.
    Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Bill Hicks

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Huddinge, Stockholm
    Posts
    8,592


    Default

    It bugs me, when people put question-marks after statements instead of letting them be statements or formulating it as questions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijs View Post
    Sometimes I love Jojan <3
    Quote Originally Posted by Amiralanal View Post
    Jojan is not ignorant. He is the king. You are the enemy.
    Quote Originally Posted by PilZ-E View Post
    I appreciate Jojan.
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle654 View Post
    Jojan you are my favorite!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bipolar Bear View Post
    Jojan fucking owns!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jebus View Post
    jojan's right boob = hawt
    Quote Originally Posted by Krojd View Post
    Jojan, you are awesome
    Quote Originally Posted by yarock View Post
    Jojan fr den Sieg.
    Quote Originally Posted by KickHimWhenHe'sDown View Post
    I like Jojan's signature.
    Quote Originally Posted by Defender View Post
    Jojan for President!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sidewinder View Post
    I actually think Jojan is pretty funny in his own right.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJakes84 View Post
    Jojan's signature is the longest and most beloved. <3
    Quote Originally Posted by KickHimWhenHe'sDown View Post
    Maybe because it came from Jojan, and Jojan rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by "Melyssa K" Kennedy View Post
    Jojan is right
    Quote Originally Posted by -Ignition- View Post
    Jojans planer lter bra.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,044


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WebDudette View Post
    Oh right, sorry. I should have paid closer attention.

    I'd look at it the same way people use words like psychopath, or even homicidal. While I don't condone it's usage psychopath doesn't really mean any one thing to most people does it? It's just some hyperbole people throw around, just like homicidal. I think genocidal could certainly mean a couple things, but that's the thing about English, isn't it? Ambiguity, context, all that jazz. I think generally, I could get away with using it in conversation, 'That Sinister kid sure was a weird dude, did you hear all those racists and violent things he said? That guys one bad day away from being genocidal' 'Kim Jong Il declared war and promised the death of all South Koreans, that dude is genocidal'. It's all idle debate to me though, it's a weird thing to say and I wouldn't, but I wouldn't really look twice at someone who did.

    As I think you might have hinted at in the end of your post, 'genocidal acts' would totally make sense to me.
    Genocidal acts, or genocidal organizations works for me. It still isn't officially a word, but in terms of communication, sure. My entire argument has been against using it as a personality trait, or a characteristic of a person. A psychopathic person is without empathy/is highly antisocial. A homicidal person is considered likely to commit homicide (much like a suicidal person is considered likely to commit suicide). It is not possible for a person to be likely to commit genocide, nor does it make sense, so I do not believe that a person can be genocidal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paint_It_Black View Post
    You could, but why not stick with threatening, conversational and accident-prone? I mean, since these traits already have words it seems silly not to use them.
    A person who has a threatening demeanor doesn't necessarily make threats. A person can not be conversational - they can be talkative or sociable, but that is not the same thing. There does not exist a word for a person who often makes threats toward others, or is very good at making conversation (both talking and listening). Accident-prone also doesn't mean quite the same thing. But see, that's part of my point. There are plenty of other words we can use to describe someone you might be considering as "genocidal" that there's absolutely no need to use this vague non-word.

    Cody, I'm also a fan of using genocidal to describe certain ideologies and organizations. Groups like the KKK and Aryan Nation are genocidal organizations because they are either direct proponents of genocide or, at the very least, proponents of racist ideas that can be used as precursors for genocide.
    Yeah, I don't really have any qualms with referring to an organization or various acts as genocidal. I wouldn't do it myself because I think there are much better word options, but I would not disagree with its usage or find its meaning unclear.

    This discussion is totally idle; I'm surprised it got brought up again, but I've spent the last 6 years of my life debating language and linguistics, so I'm easily drawn in, and care more than most :P I have these kinds of discussions and debates with several friends in real life who are also linguists... I enjoy it. The status of "genocidal" doesn't really matter much, but it is interesting to me.

    Sorry, I was a bit pissy yesterday when I made my last post.
    Last edited by Llamas; 01-27-2014 at 11:06 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by jsmak84 View Post
    I do not drink alcohol and coffee

    I do not smoke and do not do drugs

    I just do bumpin in my trunk

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Transmetropolitan
    Posts
    6,452


    1 members appreciate this post.

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    My personal view is that a word is a word if it clearly gets your point across to the vast majority whoop wasof the people you communicate with. If you only interact with 5 other people and you all understand each other fine, it doesn't matter how others see it; everything you're using are words.

    Can you see why I think you're contradicting yourself? Then again, it doesn't really matter what you think, according to you. I just saw a guy say 'he got genocidal heat' in reference to a guy being booed, and knew exactly what he was trying to convey. One of my points earlier is that people just use psychopath as a place holder, you don't have to be displaying genuinely psychopathic traits, it's hyperbole. When someone is mad and you call them homicidal, it's not because they actually want to murder anyone. When someone is called genocidal they aren't likely to kill all Italians, they're just crazy angry/racist, or you know, maybe they do wish a whole group of people were dead, why couldn't genocidal describe that?

    It's a silly thing to say you could use other words to describe it, because like 1/3rd of the English language is redundant. Irregardless makes no sense by the way, and there is a much better word to describe the same thing, that word is regardless...
    Last edited by WebDudette; 01-28-2014 at 04:49 PM.
    I wrote a four word letter.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •