40 Years..

[Olo401]

Thread derailed by the very language we use.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nstruction.png

He is proud.

Yeah. Ahem. Here's another non-word.

Wutev.

Can we get back on-topic plskthx.

[Howard Roark]

U2 is crap

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messa...508/402242.jpg

"Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah"!!

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...bono_enter.jpg

[Khamsin]

Yeah. Ahem. Here's another non-word.

You do realize that anybody can add "words" to the wiki, and half that article is spent talking about how nobody recognizes it as a proper word.

[Melchiah]

Irregardless

This abomination is a construct by the ignorant who think that there is a direct relationship between the amount of letters and or syllables they force into a phrase and their perceived IQ. It is used by idiots who think using big words, made up or not, makes them appear intelligent. Be wary of this pitfall. Slapping the ir- prefix onto words beginning with the letter r in the english language is used to denote a reversal of meaning. Respective vs Irrespective. Responsible vs Irresponsible.

Regardless vs... no. It doesn't go there, just like your girlfriend told you last time you wanted to try something different. The opposite of regardless would be the phrase "with regard to", not irregardless. Furthermore, in the context it is always used in, the correct word is regardless in the first goddamned place.

Don't want to bash anyone, but FFS, don't say irregardless.

[Plow]

it's used generally to place emphasis, not to look smarter

it's considered by many an improper word, so is ain't and so is y'all, but fuck anybody that says I can't use those either

[Melchiah]

"Y'all" is a contraction, perfectly acceptable in the english language. Think isn't, can't, won't, etc. Ain't I can't really justify though, because I hear it in different tenses and persons and therefore I can't associate words with it to see a clear cut contraction. "I ain't blah blah" could almost be a contraction for "am not" but then I hear someone say "we ain't" or "you ain't" or "they ain't" and that just throws the subject-verb agreement out of the window. It seems to be a catch-all contraction for am/are forms of be and not. Aren't is the contraction for are and not, but am and not do not have one. I hate hearing "ain't".

Irregardless is not however, used for emphasis. Take for example the use in the OP in this thread:

Many of us were not yet born on this day 40 years ago. Irregardless, the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has impacted all of our lives through changes in American society has made since he was assasinated.

In this case, the idea the OP was trying to get across was that regardless of the fact that most of us were born after the assassination of Dr. King, his work has impacted most of our lives through changes in American society.

Like I said, the ir- prefix denotes a reversal of meaning. The idea in the quote above(and in EVERY other use of irregardless) is to say that one event(being affected by Dr. King's work) happens to a person whether or not a second event(they were born during his lifetime or after he was assassinated) also happens.

Look at it like this, putting the ir- prefix onto a word that has the -less suffix is a double negative. You are reversing the meaning of a word twice, thus bringing you back around to the original word.

[Plow]

"Y'all" is a contraction, perfectly acceptable in the english language. Think isn't, can't, won't, etc. Ain't I can't really justify though, because I hear it in different tenses and persons and therefore I can't associate words with it to see a clear cut contraction. "I ain't blah blah" could almost be a contraction for "am not" but then I hear someone say "we ain't" or "you ain't" or "they ain't" and that just throws the subject-verb agreement out of the window. It seems to be a catch-all contraction for am/are forms of be and not. Aren't is the contraction for are and not, but am and not do not have one. I hate hearing "ain't".

What do all those contractions you mentioned have in common that y'all doesn't have? Or to go further "you're", "they're," etc. Verbage! Also the fact that contractions are made by eliminating letters from the second word, which is part of why "ain't" is so popular and yet so disliked, as it eliminates parts of the first word. Y'all, technically, is no more of a word than ain't or irregardless. Perhaps less so than ain't as it is fairly well accepted at this point, while y'all is still mostly a regional thing that basically came from the way you all sounds with a thick southwestern accent.

Irregardless is not however, used for emphasis. Take for example the use in the OP in this thread:

Many of us were not yet born on this day 40 years ago. Irregardless, the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. has impacted all of our lives through changes in American society has made since he was assasinated.

In this case, the idea the OP was trying to get across was that regardless of the fact that most of us were born after the assassination of Dr. King, his work has impacted most of our lives through changes in American society.

Do you see how you italicized regardless to put emphasis on it? Do you see how much attention using irregardless brought to it instead?

Like I said, the ir- prefix denotes a reversal of meaning. The idea in the quote above(and in EVERY other use of irregardless) is to say that one event(being affected by Dr. King's work) happens to a person whether or not a second event(they were born during his lifetime or after he was assassinated) also happens.

Look at it like this, putting the ir- prefix onto a word that has the -less suffix is a double negative. You are reversing the meaning of a word twice, thus bringing you back around to the original word.

People use improper words all the time, irregardless has improper origins but the beauty of the English language is that it's a massive hodgepodge (spellcheck that word for example lol...) of different roots and origins and different purposes. This is not confusing they're with their, this is simply adding emphasis to the root word.


Edit: In closing, I propose that irregardless is not used improperly as a double negative, but more of a word used as punctuation to clear the first part in a more impacting manner than without the ir-. Serious business, etc.

[shihei]

the only way I make sense of ain't is... am(are) is not...but it doesn't do it much justice...


/derail over?

[Plow]

the only way I make sense of ain't is... am(are) is not...but it doesn't do it much justice...


/derail over?

it ain't over til... ah nevermind

[Melchiah]

Plow you are missing the point.

Do you see how you italicized regardless to put emphasis on it?

No. No, no no. I italicized that word because it was the subject of discussion, not to place emphasis on it in the phrase it was used in.

The fact of the matter is this: "rootword-less" means "without-rootword" in English. Example: Jobless, brainless, spineless, clueless, etc.

And "Ir-rootwordbeginningwithR" means "without-rootwordbeginningwithR". Example: Irresponsible, irrespective.

Do you see how much attention using irregardless brought to it instead?

Yes I do, but only because irregardless is an inexcusable gaffe. "Irregardless" means without without regard, and it simply does not compute, unless you are a moron. As I said earlier, it's used by people who think more syllables and letters in a word makes them look smarter than they are, and it's just plain wrong. Say regardless or irrespective, but don't combine them.

To address the y'all point: We'll, you'll, they'll, we'd, you'd, they'd... all are contractions involving nouns. Also, if you speak Spanish, they have only one contraction, and it involves neither noun nor verb, and I defy you to choose from which word the e is subtracted from. Del from de el, or "of the". So saying that y'all is improper as a contraction and is only a regional thing from the South is failure. :bagel:

In the case of "ain't", no one really knows what words are involved in that abomination, since it is used in place of many different verbs. For example, you aint, we aint(are not), it/he/she (is not) and I aint(am not). You cannot nail down what words make up aint, because it is a mutt of a word. And it's wrong.

In summary, irregardless is what we in the South refer to as a 75-cent word, which is one used by a moron to make himself sound intelligent.

Irregardless, I seen it yesterday.

At this point I've pretty much proven how and why it is wrong in the English language, so I'll kindly drop the matter now.

[Plow]

Plow you are missing the point.

Do you see how you italicized regardless to put emphasis on it?

No. No, no no. I italicized that word because it was the subject of discussion, not to place emphasis on it in the phrase it was used in.

The fact of the matter is this: "rootword-less" means "without-rootword" in English. Example: Jobless, brainless, spineless, clueless, etc.

And "Ir-rootwordbeginningwithR" means "without-rootwordbeginningwithR". Example: Irresponsible, irrespective.


[quote:2p992j58]Do you see how much attention using irregardless brought to it instead?

Yes I do, but only because irregardless is an inexcusable gaffe. "Irregardless" means without without regard, and it simply does not compute, unless you are a moron. As I said earlier, it's used by people who think more syllables and letters in a word makes them look smarter than they are, and it's just plain wrong. Say regardless or irrespective, but don't combine them. [/quote:2p992j58]

I'm sorry, you're in my head? As well as that of the op? You're able to say 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that he sat there and thought "if I add an extra syllable I'll look smarter!" I'm sitting here telling you the reason I occasionally use the word, and you're attempting to tell me that I don't know what my own mental process and reasoning is.

To address the y'all point: We'll, you'll, they'll, we'd, you'd, they'd... all are contractions involving nouns.

And guess what else they all involve? ZOMG MOAR VERBAGE! Notice that part where I mentioned you're and they're? The point is that "y'all" is simply 2 words used as one at random. There is no would, will, are, not, etc. The "proper" contractions all either lead to verbs or imply verbs.

Also, if you speak Spanish, they have only one contraction, and it involves neither noun nor verb, and I defy you to choose from which word the e is subtracted from. Del from de el, or "of the". So saying that y'all is improper as a contraction and is only a regional thing from the South is failure. :bagel:

Pretty sure that we're talking about English here, where del is not a word nor does de el mean anything. That's... a pretty terrible way of attempting to dodge an argument.

In the case of "ain't", no one really knows what words are involved in that abomination, since it is used in place of many different verbs. For example, you aint, we aint(are not), it/he/she (is not) and I aint(am not). You cannot nail down what words make up aint, because it is a mutt of a word. And it's wrong.

Ain't is officially a word in the English language now according to basically all of the major dictionaries.

In summary, irregardless is what we in the South refer to as a 75-cent word, which is one used by a m[oron to make himself sound intelligent.

Irregardless, I seen it yesterday.

At this point I've pretty much proven how and why it is wrong in the English language, so I'll kindly drop the matter now.

No one is arguing that in the most basic sense, the origin of the word is wrong. You're simply refusing to acknowledge that it is accepted in many circles now and assuming that you have the right to claim you know what other people are thinking better than they do.


And you know what the funny part is? Your entire purpose in insulting people supposedly wanting to look smart... is to make yourself look smarter.

[Melchiah]

ain't
One entry found.

ain't

Main Entry:
ain't Listen to the pronunciation of ain't
Pronunciation:
\??nt\
Etymology:
contraction of are not
Date:
1749

1 : am not : are not : is not 2 : have not : has not 3 : do not : does not : did not —used in some varieties of Black English usage Although widely disapproved as nonstandard and more common in the habitual speech of the less educated, ain't in senses 1 and 2 is flourishing in American English. It is used in both speech and writing to catch attention and to gain emphasis <the wackiness of movies, once so deliciously amusing, ain't funny anymore — Richard Schickel> <I am telling you—there ain't going to be any blackmail — R. M. Nixon>. It is used especially in journalistic prose as part of a consistently informal style <the creative process ain't easy — Mike Royko>. This informal ain't is commonly distinguished from habitual ain't by its frequent occurrence in fixed constructions and phrases <well—class it ain't— Cleveland Amory> <for money? say it ain't so, Jimmy! — Andy Rooney> <you ain't seen nothing yet> <that ain't hay> <two out of three ain't bad> <if it ain't broke, don't fix it>. In fiction ain't is used for purposes of characterization; in familiar correspondence it tends to be the mark of a warm personal friendship. It is also used for metrical reasons in popular songs <Ain't She Sweet> <It Ain't Necessarily So>. Our evidence shows British use to be much the same as American.

irregardless
One entry found.

irregardless

Main Entry:
ir·re·gard·less Listen to the pronunciation of irregardless
Pronunciation:
\?ir-i-?gärd-l?s\
Function:
adverb
Etymology:
probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date:
circa 1912

nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Bolded parts are relevant to my interests. :bagel:

Also I would like to point out that in English, a contraction is never defined as leading to a verb, only that it is two words shortened by omission of a letter(s) or syllable. Verbage has bollocks to do with contractions my friend. I'll accept that you don't actively try to appear smarter by use of the word, if you will accept that that the word is quite simply grammatically wrong and you don't know any better. We can fix the latter easier than the former.

And I wish for you to prove this:

Ain't is officially a word in the English language now according to basically all of the major dictionaries.

So far, every entry I find regarding it seems to only include it because so many uneducated people use it, however there is almost always a notation to that effect in the entry itself, like the one I bolded above.

[Plow]

I'll accept that you don't actively try to appear smarter by use of the word, if you will accept that that the word is quite simply grammatically wrong and you don't know any better.

Except the whole part where I've said all along I know exactly what the problems are and choose to occasionally use the word casually to place emphasis.

It's all good though, keep up the "zomg look how smart I am and look how stupid people look when they try to look smart" routine. I'm sure it's making you feel awesome repeating the same things no one has denied all along and throwing in different ways of trying to call people stupid over things you believe in your mind that simply aren't the case.


Edit: also, find me a contraction that does not revolve around verbs.

Better yet I'll just do this part for you:

In English, contractions are commonly used in speech and informal writing. They are almost always either negations with not or combinations of pronouns with auxiliary verbs, and in these cases always include an apostrophe in the written form.

The first category of contractions is those formed by an auxiliary verb or form of be plus the word not, with the o replaced by an apostrophe, e.g. don't, wouldn't, haven't. Notable exceptions include won't, shan't and ain't.

Although these were historically contractions, there are good reasons in current English to analyze them as inflectional suffixes rather than contractions.[1]

The second category is generally in the form of a pronoun (or occasionally a noun) plus an auxiliary verb or a form of to be, with the apostrophe replacing as few as one letter, as in it's for it is, or four letters, as in I'd for I would. One of the largest such contractions is I'd've for I would have. Auxiliary verbs which can be contracted include will, would, shall, have/has, and had. In British English it is acceptable to form a contraction with the verb have even when it is used as the primary verb (as with the phrase "I've a date today").

The only commonly used English contraction of two words that does not fall into any of the above categories is "let's", a contraction of "let us" that is used in forming the imperative mood in the first-person plural (e.g. "Let's go [somewhere]"). Use of the uncontracted "let us" typically carries an entirely different meaning (e.g. "Let us go [free]"). "Let us" is rarely seen in the former sense and "let's" is never seen in the latter one.

In other words, you won't find one.

[Melchiah]

People will associate those they meet with the part of society those they meet associate themselves with. Using words like ain't and irregardless make one appear ignorant. You claim you use the word to place emphasis. This is fallacy, and if you can't see why I won't bother trying to explain it to you.

Edit: Considering the contraction discussion, brb.

I'll ignore the lolwiki for the moment.

Contractions not involving verbs:

ma'am (single noun, Madam)

o'clock (prepositional phrase)

jack o'lantern (noun, preposition, jack of lantern)

Your serve my good sir.

[Plow]

People will associate those they meet with the part of society those they meet associate themselves with. Using words like ain't and irregardless make one appear ignorant. You claim you use the word to place emphasis. This is fallacy, and if you can't see why I won't bother trying to explain it to you.

Were you aware of the fact hat people are stupid in general? Clearly you like to think about it a lot.


The fact of the matter is that we are on an internet forum. You can get irritated by people using ain't and irregardless all you want, but you're only going to irritate yourself and build a laughable superiority complex where you think you know why people do things.

You seriously cannot sit here and tell me why I use the words I use, period.

[Melchiah]

You seriously cannot sit here and tell me why I use the words I use, period.

Sure I can. You either use it fully knowing the word is wrong, which makes you willfully ignorant, or you don't know any better, which makes you ignorant. Your choice. Your reasons can be your own, but anyone with an education knows better than to use made up words like that.

[Plow]

People will associate those they meet with the part of society those they meet associate themselves with. Using words like ain't and irregardless make one appear ignorant. You claim you use the word to place emphasis. This is fallacy, and if you can't see why I won't bother trying to explain it to you.

Edit: Considering the contraction discussion, brb.

I'll ignore the lolwiki for the moment.

Contractions not involving verbs:

ma'am (single noun, Madam)

o'clock (prepositional phrase)

jack o'lantern (noun, preposition, jack of lantern)

Your serve my good sir.

ma'am is not a contraction, in any sense of the word, any more than John's, a contraction is not defined by an apostrophe

o'clock is an adverb

and it's jack-o'-lantern, where the apostrophe does not combine words it simply represents entire words


nice try, next time you should just stick with serving


edit:

You seriously cannot sit here and tell me why I use the words I use, period.

Sure I can. You either use it fully knowing the word is wrong, which makes you willfully ignorant, or you don't know any better, which makes you ignorant. Your choice. Your reasons can be your own, but anyone with an education knows better than to use made up words like that.

says the guy that just tried to use "jack o'lantern" in an argument about the English language


It is *NOT* ignorant to know exactly what you're doing and choose an option some might not accept that most will not notice and will have the desired effect in a casual situation.

[Melchiah]

ma'am is not a contraction, in any sense of the word, any more than John's, a contraction is not defined by an apostrophe

o'clock is an adverb

and it's jack-o'-lantern, where the apostrophe does not combine words it simply represents entire words

I won't insult you, but I will tell you that you are flat out wrong.

Ma'am is short for Madam. John's is the possessive form of John.

o'clock is not an adverb, wtf do you get this lol. of the clock is a prepositional phrase. Show me what verb o'clock modifies.

Jack-o'-lantern is as much a contraction as any other word I listed here or any that you did in previous posts. Go check your lolwiki definition of a contraction again. Or better yet, try the Merriam-Webster one. I'd come closer to believing something out Webster than lolwiki where any ignorant putz behind a 'puter can edit things to his ignorant whims.

[Plow]

ma'am is not a contraction, in any sense of the word, any more than John's, a contraction is not defined by an apostrophe

o'clock is an adverb

and it's jack-o'-lantern, where the apostrophe does not combine words it simply represents entire words

I won't insult you, but I will tell you that you are flat out wrong.

Ma'am is short for Madam. John's is the possessive form of John.

That doesn't make it a contraction. It is cutting out one letter in the middle of a word. A contraction is not one single word.

o'clock is not an adverb, wtf do you get this lol. of the clock is a prepositional phrase. Show me what verb o'clock modifies.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/o'clock

o'clock (-klk)
adv.
1. Of or according to the clock: three o'clock.
2. According to an imaginary clock dial with the observer at the center and 12 o'clock considered as straight ahead in horizontal position or straight up in vertical position. Used to indicate relative position: enemy planes at 10 o'clock.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/o'clock

o'clock

Main Entry:
o'·clock Listen to the pronunciation of o'clock
Pronunciation:
\?-?kläk, ?-\
Function:
adverb
Etymology:
contraction of of the clock

Jack-o'-lantern is as much a contraction as any other word I listed here or any that you did in previous posts. Go check your lolwiki definition of a contraction again. Or better yet, try the Merriam-Webster one. I'd come closer to believing something out Webster than lolwiki where any ignorant putz behind a 'puter can edit things to his ignorant whims.

Even if you want to consider jack-o'-lantern a contraction, the part which is a contraction is an adverb in the same manner as o'clock, it has to *be* of the clock. To be, or not to be, that is an action.

[Melchiah]

That doesn't make it a contraction. It is cutting out one letter in the middle of a word. A contraction is not one single word.

contraction
One entry found.

contraction

Main Entry:
con·trac·tion Listen to the pronunciation of contraction
Pronunciation:
\k?n-?trak-sh?n\
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

1 a: the action or process of contracting : the state of being contracted b: the shortening and thickening of a functioning muscle or muscle fiber c: a reduction in business activity or growth
2: a shortening of a word, syllable, or word group by omission of a sound or letter; also : a form produced by such shortening
— con·trac·tion·al Listen to the pronunciation of contractional \-shn?l, -sh?-n?l\ adjective
— con·trac·tive Listen to the pronunciation of contractive Listen to the pronunciation of contractive \k?n-?trak-tiv, ?kän-?\ adjective
— con·trac·tion·ary Listen to the pronunciation of contractionary \k?n-?trak-sh?-?ner-?\ adjective

Fine, I'll concede the point on o'clock. But ma'am is most certainly a contraction involving no verb.

Edit: I'll do you a few better, these just came to mind:

fo'c'sle (forecastle)

bo's'un (also simply bosun, from the english "boatswain")

milord

milady

ne'er (never)

e'er (ever)

Again, your serve. :nikkei: