(01-21-2015, 11:01 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-21-2015, 10:58 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: not a word.

...used by people who ignorantly mean to say regardless.

I'm ignorant, I sometimes use "irregardless".

It's a word; an emphatic version of "regardless".

Kind of an "inflammable" one which gets grammar nazis all fired up though.

(01-21-2015, 11:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(01-21-2015, 11:01 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-21-2015, 10:58 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: not a word.

...used by people who ignorantly mean to say regardless.

I'm ignorant, I sometimes use "irregardless".

It's a word; an emphatic version of "regardless".

Kind of an "inflammable" one which gets grammar nazis all fired up though.

It's nonsense. regardless means with no regard. Irregardless means what exactly?
[video=youtube]http://youtu.be/8JNuqEz_GCQ [/video]

Everyone hates the Patriots. For some reason or another.

(01-21-2015, 12:50 PM)Maggot Wrote: Everyone hates the Patriots. For some reason or another.

Nobody likes a cheater maggs.

(01-21-2015, 12:55 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(01-21-2015, 12:50 PM)Maggot Wrote: Everyone hates the Patriots. For some reason or another.

Nobody likes a cheater maggs.

So out of all the balls that were used by the Colts they felt that they were all underinflated and never said anything throughout the entire game? Even if only one was the right pressure they only realized the situation a few days after the game and that was only because it was brought up by a Colts announcer?

(01-21-2015, 12:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: It's nonsense. regardless means with no regard. Irregardless means what exactly?

"Irregardless" means the same thing as "regardless", Gunnar. It's been an English language word for over a century. Similar to "flammable" and "inflammable".

There's no valid disputing that "irregardless" is a word, and no valid disputing that it's a redundant non-standard word either.

Sometimes it's natural for me to think it in place of "nevertheless" or for emphasis, so I go ahead and use it on rare occasion -- knowing full well that the sight/sound of it is frowned upon by sticklers. That may be why I don't have a "forbidden word" list for non-academic and non-professional writings and conversation -- I don't mind be a stickler tickler.

(01-21-2015, 01:02 PM)Maggot Wrote: So out of all the balls that were used by the Colts they felt that they were all underinflated and never said anything throughout the entire game?

Based on what I read and posted upthread, it was noticed and reported at half-time by a player and an official.

P.s. I don't hate the Patriots at all. I just find the story interesting and am curious about the penalty for playing with deflated balls.

(01-21-2015, 01:02 PM)Maggot Wrote:

(01-21-2015, 12:55 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(01-21-2015, 12:50 PM)Maggot Wrote: Everyone hates the Patriots. For some reason or another.

Nobody likes a cheater maggs.

So out of all the balls that were used by the Colts they felt that they were all underinflated and never said anything throughout the entire game? Even if only one was the right pressure they only realized the situation a few days after the game and that was only because it was brought up by a Colts announcer?

I think you're confused. Each offense has 12 balls they can use during the game. Colts have their balls, Pats have theirs. Pats balls were underinflated. Colts balls were regulation.

(01-21-2015, 01:26 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(01-21-2015, 12:42 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: It's nonsense. regardless means with no regard. Irregardless means what exactly?

"Irregardless" means the same thing as "regardless", Gunnar. It's been an English language word for over a century. Similar to "flammable" and "inflammable".

There's no valid disputing that "irregardless" is a word, and no valid disputing that it's a redundant non-standard word either.

Sometimes it's natural for me to think it in place of "nevertheless" or for emphasis, so I go ahead and use it on rare occasion -- knowing full well that the sight/sound of it is frowned upon by sticklers. That may be why I don't have a "forbidden word" list for non-academic and non-professional writings and conversation -- I don't mind be a stickler tickler.

Okay then prove the validity by nomenclature. Flamable means it can catch on fire. Inflamable means it's flame resistant. Regardless means without regard. Please define irregardless by means of nomenclature the same way I did above without sounding like a moron. Impossible. Not a word. There are a lot of words in the english language that are ignorant and have been around for a long time. Doesn't add to their validity.

Using flamable and inflamable was a bad choice to use in comparison because there is a positive and negative there. Regardless is already negative, the positive would be regard.

(01-21-2015, 02:26 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Okay then prove the validity by nomenclature. Flamable means it can catch on fire. Inflamable means it's flame resistant. Regardless means without regard. Please define irregardless by means of nomenclature the same way I did above without sounding like a moron. Impossible. Not a word. There are a lot of words in the english language that are ignorant and have been around for a long time. Doesn't add to their validity.

You're trying too hard to win a non-existent argument and look intelligent here, Gunnar. I'm not sure why. Irregardless, it's funny stuff.

I never questioned your intelligence in the first place and already answered your question. "Irregardless" is a word. It has the same meaning as "regardless". Regardless of it being redundant and admittedly useless, "irregardless" is a word that has found its way into the English vocabulary. I understand that many people, such as you, find its uselessness and redundancy offensive. That amuses me, for some reason.

Regardless of the fact that I've taught English for a living in the past, I find very few words offensive, least of all the word "irregardless". And, I'm not worried about failing to impress people on those rare occasions when I choose to use "irregardless" in casual writing or conversation, as opposed to using "regardless" or "nonetheless" or "in spite of". So, irregardless of your scorn, I shall likely continue to use it (with a smile) from time to time, knowing that a legion of sticklers will be all hot under the collar about it -- even if it means they think me an ignoramus or a moron (*gasp*).

Tickle, tickle.

P.s. "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the exact same thing, professor.

^ Smart chicks with a cute face and great body are really hot, HotD.

(01-21-2015, 03:06 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(01-21-2015, 02:26 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Okay then prove the validity by nomenclature. Flamable means it can catch on fire. Inflamable means it's flame resistant. Regardless means without regard. Please define irregardless by means of nomenclature the same way I did above without sounding like a moron. Impossible. Not a word. There are a lot of words in the english language that are ignorant and have been around for a long time. Doesn't add to their validity.

You're trying too hard to win a non-existent argument and look intelligent here, Gunnar. I'm not sure why. Irregardless, it's funny stuff.

I never questioned your intelligence in the first place and already answered your question. "Irregardless" is a word. It has the same meaning as "regardless". Regardless of it being redundant and admittedly useless, "irregardless" is a word that has found its way into the English vocabulary. I understand that many people, such as you, find its uselessness and redundancy offensive. That amuses me, for some reason.

Regardless of the fact that I've taught English for a living in the past, I find very few words offensive, least of all the word "irregardless". And, I'm not worried about failing to impress people on those rare occasions when I choose to use "irregardless" in casual writing or conversation, as opposed to using "regardless" or "nonetheless" or "in spite of". So, irregardless of your scorn, I shall likely continue to use it (with a smile) from time to time, knowing that a legion of sticklers will be all hot under the collar about it -- even if it means they think me an ignoramus or a moron (*gasp*).

Tickle, tickle.

P.s. "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the exact same thing, professor.

Touche, although they are a bit different (inflamable would be more appropriate in describing a personality) the core is the same. I got carried away for a minute because when people add things to words that aren't needed or required it bothers me. If you taught english and you believe irregardless is acceptable then shame on you. You dodged my challenge to define by means of nomenclature and for your argument it was a good escape tactic. So I will simplify the challenge. Why is the "ir" in irregardless needed? Doesn't regardless suit the definition? What purpose does "ir" serve in the word?

(01-21-2015, 03:47 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: ^ Smart chicks with a cute face and great body are really hot, HotD.

We're broken up now. You can have her.

HotD has had all of us at one time or another.

From Grammar girl...

Irregardless Versus Regardless
If it's in the dictionary, does that make it a real word?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By Mignon Fogarty, Grammar Girl October 31, 2013 2661 105 36tumblr22
Episode #094 Page 1 of 2


Today's topic is irregardless.

Hi, Grammar Girl. I'm an English teacher in Boston, Massachusetts, and I am freaking out. One of my students tells me that irregardless is now a word, and apparently it's been added to some dictionaries. Can you clear this up for me. This is serious panic time.

In the immortal words of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Don't panic. Irregardless is a word, but it's not a proper word, and your student's assertion that it's in some dictionaries is a great opportunity to talk about the different kinds of dictionaries and the different kinds of entries in dictionaries.

Irregardless Versus Regardless
First, let's talk about irregardless. Some people mistakenly use irregardless when they mean “regardless.” Regardless means “regard less,” “without regard,” or despite something. For example, Squiggly will eat chocolate regardless of the consequences.

The prefix ir- (i-r) is a negative prefix, so if you add the prefix ir to a word that's already negative like regardless, you're making a double-negative word that literally means “without without regard.”

Language experts speculate that irregardless comes from a combination of the words regardless and irrespective and that another reason people might say "irregardless" is that they are following the pattern of words like irregular and irreplaceable. But regardless already has the -less suffix on the end, so it's not like those other words.

Standard Versus Nonstandard English
Now, on to dictionaries. Although it's true that the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, and the Oxford English Dictionary all list the word irregardless, they also note that it's considered nonstandard. Listing a word as nonstandard is a way that dictionaries concede that a word is in common use, but isn't really a proper word. Standard language is defined as the language spoken by educated native speakers (1), but comprehensive dictionaries also include nonstandard words, dialect, colloquialisms, and jargon--words like ain't, conversate, and irregardless. It seems pretty common for people to look up a word in a dictionary, and if it's there, they think it's fine to use that word every circumstance. It's the "Look, it's a word!" phenomenon. But you have to look a little further to see what kind of word it is, and if it's nonstandard in some way, then use it with caution. You'll sound uneducated if you go around saying things like I ain't gonna conversate with him irregardless of the consequences.

Sometimes words make the transition from nonstandard to standard English. My dictionaries assure me that snuck is a word that falls into this category (although I know that will upset some of you). But since many educated people still rail against irregardless, and the word isn't commonly seen in edited writing, I don't believe irregardless is going to make the transition to standard language any time soon.

(01-21-2015, 01:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: and am curious about the penalty for playing with deflated balls.

It used to only cost me dinner and some clever conversation..

All the fun happens here when I'm asleep. I'll just leave this snarky little quote I found here..

One commenter, the same who said, “Irregardless is not a word,” noted rather aptly, “There is absolutely no value to ‘irregardless’ except to recognize people who didn’t study.” Exactly. There is nothing wrong with its ability to communicate; it’s only the word’s metacommunication—that is, what it communicates about its user—that is problematic. To put it a different way, the problem with irregardless is entirely social: if you use it, you’ll be thought of as uneducated, even though everyone can understand you just fine.

Irregardabilitous of that... to conversate on Duch's question:

I don't think the Cowboys need to "cut" any star players, but both Murray and Dez are Free Agents this year, and both will be looking for BIG contracts. The Cowboys are estimated to have 7 or 8 Mil in cap space, but have a long list of FAs: Murray, Dunbar, Bryant/Beasley/Harris, Leary/Free/Parnell, Carter/McClain. That's Starting/backup RB, Starting/2backup WR, Starting LG, Starting/backup RT, and two starting ILBs.

So with 7 mil, they have three options. Sign both Murray and Dez and let everyone else walk (bad idea), sign everyone else and let one walk, or sign all of them and make Dez/Murray's contracts huge signing bonuses with very low starting salaries. That pushes the "cap hit" money back to the second year and beyond the way the Saints had to play with money to sign Jairus Byrd. The Saints, for reference, are estimated at 23 Million OVER the cap for next year. Plus, the Cowboys already have an increasingly difficult contract to handle with Romo since they keep pushing his cap hit back. His cap number for 2015 is 27 Million. (WOW!)

So I think they'll try to keep Dez and let Murray leave, signing the rest and hoping Dunbar can run behind their good line just as well as Murray. It's optimistic to say the least... nobody knows how durable or consistent Dunbar will be. If they gamble on keeping everyone for 2015... it'll be a Denver Broncos "SB or bust" type situation. They'd be in dire cap situation moving forward.

For any stats or analysis of Cap situation, most internet pontificators like me use Overthecap.com

Great site for the money side of football.

IRREGARDLESS!!!

I've already answered the questions that you're asking me, Gunnar. There was no dodging or escape tactic involved. But, I'll answer your questions again, in the same structure as you posted them.

In regards to "ir":
As I noted previously, the word "irregardless" (including the "ir") is useless. "Regardless" should instead be used if you're worried about being most proper at all times and/or trying to impress. None of which is an issue for me in casual communication.

In regards to the acceptability of "irregardless":
As I noted previously, I do not think that "irregardless" is acceptable in academic or professional writings. However, when it comes to casual conversation and writings, like in the context of posting on a fun internet forum, this broad ain't gonna give a shit if you use a non-standard word, a slang word, or a curse word over a more formal one, so long as I understand what you're communicating. Language is meant to facilitate communication and I, personally, care more about understanding each others' points than I do about word choice. Plus, I like it when people say/write things in accordance with how they think and feel.

Know what I mean? I bet you do, even though I could have said it using more proper English and avoided littering up the joint with "broad", "ain't", "gonna" "shit", run-on sentences, and fragments. I'm shameless, Gunnar!!

Back to NFL?

(01-21-2015, 03:59 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: HotD has had all of us at one time or another.

Maybe in your nocturnal emissions.