Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: dayglored
He spelled "irregardless" correctly. It's just not considered a "standard" word, that's all.... :)

True, but under the standard rules of English word formation, irregardless contains a double negative in the prefix. Libs have bastardized the Constitution, our culture, and our language quite enough, thank you.

123 posted on 07/04/2012 2:06:51 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]


To: Windflier
> ...under the standard rules of English word formation, irregardless contains a double negative in the prefix...

Oh, you're quite correct on that score. Personally I avoid that usage, since it's not only a double negative, it's not an effective positive, since it is taken to mean exactly the same thing as "regardless". So I have always preferred "regardless". In fact, for most of my 60 years I've considered "irregardless" flat-out incorrect; a non-word. I was at first shocked to see it get accepted.

Then I thought about "flammable" and "inflammable", and a few other examples, and decided to lighten up about it. Hence my tongue-in-cheek mention of a campaign to consider "irregardless" standard.

126 posted on 07/04/2012 2:25:37 PM PDT by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson