Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: "Irregardless" is now in the dictionary?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    18,009


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paint_It_Black View Post
    Essentially, yes. Though I wouldn't personally choose to call it a ban. I feel it doesn't quite bring the correct connotation to mind. Prohibit would perhaps be better. I'd like to see the word formally forbidden by an appropriate authority. More or less like MW has apparently already done.
    MW is encouraging people to use "regardless" instead... I don't see "irregardless" being forbidden at all. It's definitely discouraged and looked down on, but it's a long way from having the status of "gonna", for example (that's as close to forbidden as a word gets, I think, unless we talk about "nigger" or even curse words in general). I guess the reason it doesn't have the same status as "gonna" is because there are still enough people who aren't aware that it's "wrong", or perhaps it's just not as obvious a mistake to catch.
    You didn't seem to feel that way when you argued that "genocidal" is not a word even though it clearly gets its point across to everyone, including you.
    Either you're joking, or I didn't explain my opinion on what makes a "word" well enough. So I will try to elaborate. I was arguing for the use of slang and colloquial language - if everyone you talk to uses "irregardless" and you all consider it to be a word, it's a word, in my opinion. A good example is the word "bling". Most of white America lost it when that got added to the dictionary. Most said it's not a word. Except there are a whole lot of people who were using this word among themselves - they all considered it a word, and there were enough people using it on a regular basis for it to become an "official" word. If we look regionally, as well - where I grew up, a drinking fountain is a "bubbler". That word isn't in most dictionaries, but it still qualifies as a word because all the people in my region - everyone I interacted with - used that word, and we all understood and agreed on its meaning. My argument here was mostly because I get so fucking sick people arguing that various colloquialisms and words from other dialects are "not words" or are "wrong", or that the people who use them are stupid and uneducated. Genocidal is not slang, it is not a colloquialism. I wasn't arguing its usage simply because it's not in the dictionary; I was arguing its usage because I did not believe* that its definition (as given by people in the thread) is possible. I did not believe that someone or something can *be* "genocidal". That was my argument. *After a lot of thought on it, as well as more reading, my opinion has actually slightly changed. I do think that it is perhaps possible for someone to be genocidal, but I still don't know that I'd use it as a personality trait. I'd be much more likely to a call a person a violent racist or something.

    edit: dude, paragraphs don't seem to show up at all anymore on this site...
    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. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,106


    Default

    Irregardless of what anyone says, you people are disoriented.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,892


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    MW is encouraging people to use "regardless" instead... I don't see "irregardless" being forbidden at all.
    Being a tad too literal perhaps.

    Quote Originally Posted by Llamas View Post
    Either you're joking
    Of course I'm joking. Though my point was still valid. Regardless of intent your definition of what a word is validated "genocidal". It clearly gets its point across to the vast majority of people.
    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

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,319


    1 members appreciate this post.

    Default

    Literature and civilisation peaked round 1850-1880.

    What comes after that is pretty much devolution, so all those questions about what is to get in or out of the dictionary are pointless. You can still find the odd gem shining through a sea of trash, mind you, but it's getting rarer and rarer. People have the flimsiest grasp of grammar, they haven't studied "humanities" (Latin and Greek) so etymology is completely lost on them, they can no longer turn language into a beautiful diamond, showing that man may and must rise above necessity. All beauty has gone down the drain and so will man, inevitably.

    Bah. Sic transit gloria mundi.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,892


    Default

    But science, my dear. Science!
    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

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,319


    Default

    Don't think I haven't thought about and discussed it at length. Every disastrous seed was sown during the Industrial Revolution. And every invention since then has its roots right there. Or may even have been dreamed about or thought up long before then (Renaissance, Da Vinci, ...).

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    9,892


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duskygrin View Post
    Literature and civilisation peaked round 1850-1880.
    How could civilisation have peaked when racism, sexism and homophobia were rampant?

    In some ways I'd be more likely to agree if you'd said civilisation peaked in ancient Greece or Rome.
    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. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,319


    Default

    Oh la la. Those are quibbles, societal issues with little bearing on civilisation, because even Pushkin had an African forefather, because homosexuals DID have an impact on culture, even then, and women could be musicians, scientists and writers of merit.

    Anyway, if put in an equation, I'd jot them down as "epsilon".

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,122


    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paint_It_Black View Post
    How could civilisation have peaked when racism, sexism and homophobia were rampant?

    In some ways I'd be more likely to agree if you'd said civilisation peaked in ancient Greece or Rome.
    In ancient Greece, women were not truly humans and everybody who wasn't a citizen was a slave. Basically the same thing in Rome...
    ___________________________________________

    All the Beautiful Things you do

    Respect my authoritah !

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,319


    Default

    Yes, and no. It's complicated. What you described is Athens. Ancient Greece comprised a multitude of city-states. There was no comparing Sparta and Athens.

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
  •