SERA!

[Conrad]

More seriously, this argument was never about whether or not irregardless is a word, that point has been stated multiple times before. It's about the fact that it is incorrect, as a speaker of the English language, to use the word in any context, whether it be speech, written form, or otherwise. The word "irregardless" is incorrect because when looking for a word that would mean "in spite of," that would not be the right word to use. Inflammable/flammable can be used relatively interchangeably because they are both correct words and thus comparing the two situations makes no sense.

[Sera]

hence the part I was arguing that dictionaries should list it as slang not as incorrect, and people shouldn't /facepalm when someone uses it.

i think howard has a better understanding of it all

Whoa whoa whoa, don't use my post to affirm your stupidity, you're wrong.

I never said it was slang. The dictionary never said it was slang, and it does bother to denote slang words, but it doesn't call this word slang because it isn't slang (or it would say, "slang" prior to the definition of the word.) The dictionary says it is an incorrect word: as in, not correct. The opposite of correct. Wrong. Am I getting through, here? It's not slang, it's wrong.

[Ksandra]

Whoa whoa whoa, don't use my post to affirm your stupidity, you're wrong.

I never said it was slang. The dictionary never said it was slang, and it does bother to denote slang words, but it doesn't call this word slang because it isn't slang (or it would say, "slang" prior to the definition of the word.) The dictionary says it is an incorrect word: as in, not correct. The opposite of correct. Wrong. Am I getting through, here? It's not slang, it's wrong.

wait what? sera, char was the facepalmer not you...I haven't mentioned you at all...are you howard now? Oo;;;;;

[Ryko]

wait what? sera, char was the facepalmer not you...I haven't mentioned you at all...are you howard now? Oo;;;;;

you quoted her <.<

[Kiarax]

Just keeps digging this hole.

[Cantih]

Will this end in a clothes tearing catfight?
please?

[Ksandra]

except I wasn't using it to confirm just trying to explain what I'm arguing against...she made it sound like I thought she was agreeing with me

[Ryko]

Also jesus christ I cant believe I never responded to this.

Inflammable and Flammable are based off of different fucking words. Holy shit.

[Linliel]

"based on"

[Howard Roark]

"the etymology of the word"

[Ryko]

Nahx2

I got at least another 10 pages in me, Udunwantnun

[Sera]

hence the part I was arguing that dictionaries should list it as slang not as incorrect

Wait, what? Now the DICTIONARY is doing it wrong? Earlier you were using the dictionary as a way to prove your point. Now you're claiming the dictionary is wrong? Well, which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

Do you even know what you're talking about anymore? The dictionary isn't wrong. You are.

[Ksandra]

Also jesus christ I cant believe I never responded to this.

Inflammable and Flammable are based off of different fucking words. Holy shit.

I was gonna let the thread go but....inflammable and flammable are based off different Latin words yes, but flammable is 200 years younger than inflammable and was created to prevent confusion for companies. This guy explains it best:

Flammable and inflammable

As far as American English is concerned, "flammable" has legal consequences: The word "inflammable" is still used when speaking of emotions, "flammable" when speaking of things "capable of being easily ignited and of burning quickly." US Federal law requires the spelling "flammable" to be used on warning labels for such objects. The change from "inflammable" to "flammable" in this meaning was a deliberate reform instituted by the American scientific community and insurance industry.

If you look up the etymology of the terms, you will see that "flammable" is not given simply as "inflammable" with the "in-" dropped. The following are typical of the etymologies given for the two words. From *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,* 11th ed.:
"flammable Etymology: Latin flammare to flame, set on fire, from flamma
"Date: 1813"
"inflammable Etymology: French, from Medieval Latin inflammabilis, from Latin inflammare
"Date: 1605"
There was a discussion about this in the newsgroup alt.usage.english , in which the possibility was raised that those wishing to get rid of the "in-," out of fear that "inflammable" may be mistaken to mean "not easily ignited," may have dropped the "in-" off of "flammable" then looked around for previous uses of the word "flammable" in order to legitimize it. There were indeed very limited uses of "flammable" and "flammability" prior to the 20th century. See the post at
alt.usage.english | Google Groups plsray%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3Dv8mcvbmni3hfe4%2 540corp.supernews.com%26rnum%3D1
or
alt.usage.english | Google Groups
and the posts before and after it in that thread.
See also
&#39;inflammable&#39; confused with &#39;not flammable&#39; - an actual example found in print - alt.english.usage | Google Groups

or
&#39;inflammable&#39; confused with &#39;not flammable&#39; - an actual example found in print - alt.english.usage | Google Groups
for a verified, but *extremely* odd, instance of confusion concerning the two terms.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

note: the guy doesn't point it out (or I think he did but the link has changed since the post is so old), but at one point "flammable" did appear prior to the 1800s, for an extremely short period, but our current usage is not a continuation of that usage.

There's no "controversy" there's nothing to debate about, that's simply the history of the word flammable.


I've never even heard of people trying to argue about it, since there's really nothing to debate. I think the story of flammable's existence is pretty much agreed upon with everyone.

[Sera]

Don't try to distract from the original argument just because you lost it. No one is fooled by your red herring bullshit.

[Ksandra]

Don't try to distract from the original argument just because you lost it. No one is fooled by your red herring bullshit.

I didn't comment on your post cause I've already explained several times I wasn't using the dictionary as a defense at all, and I have no desire to be a broken record.

My comments about the dictionary were mostly a "when in Rome do as the Romans do" variety, I wasn't using it as a support, just commenting on the way they set up their definitions. The best example of this I can think of is the US creates laws, it's goal is to uphold these laws. People however can disagree with them and try to get laws changed/added/removed/etc.. My commentary on dictionaries was the companies create the definitions and therefore need to uphold their own definitions. Whereas people can argue to have these definitions changed/words added. (as in the case of "ain't")

By this, in no way was I attempting to use it as a support for my statements, if it came off as thus, then I can concede to not wording things in ways to convey that attitude, but it was not the intent in any post I've made.