The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: GlassStash on February 25, 2014, 12:19:56 PM
-
I joined a new company last year and find it odd that the 401K match isn't a match at all. Every year the directors determine an amount to deposit for you into a 401K irregardless to you depositing anything.
At the moment I am maxing out 2 Roth-IRA's and paying off the house while investing in Vanguard funds for my savings account. The only reason I would invest in the 401K would be to take advantage of the tax deduction once my IRA's are maxed.
Any other reasons someone would contribute?
Also Why would the company take this route over the traditional matching?
Pet peeve: "irregardless" is not a word, "regardless" is the word you're looking for.
To answer your questions:
1) Tax deduction benefits and lowering one's marginal tax rate (a great way to maximize Roth contributions) are the main benefits of a 401(k). Also, tax-deferred growth.
2) Some companies are generous, some prefer regular accounting with regular 401(k) contributions on their part, some both. Requiring employee contributions is not something employer have to do. (I can't think of any other reasons at the moment.)
-
^ That is a misconception: See Merriam-Webster
ir·re·gard·less adverb \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Definition of IRREGARDLESS
nonstandard
: regardless
Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS
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.
Examples of IRREGARDLESS
I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep. —Ring Lardner, The Big Town, 1921
Origin of IRREGARDLESS
probably blend of irrespective and regardless
First Known Use: circa 1912
Browse
Next Word in the Dictionary: irregenerate
Previous Word in the Dictionary: irreg
All Words Near: irregardless
Seen & Heard
What made you want to look up irregardless? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).
-
Pet peeve: "irregardless" is not a word, "regardless" is the word you're looking for.
Prescriptivism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless) is (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/irregardless) silly (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/irregardless). Language changes over time; deal with it. I doubt you'd complain that "mustache" doesn't mean "financial acumen", or "nest egg", because it does mean both of those things on this forum. (I also doubt you'd complain that a "nest egg" isn't really an egg in a nest). Regardless and irregardless are both words and have the same meaning, much like flammable and inflammable.
-
Regardless and irregardless are both words and have the same meaning, much like flammable and inflammable.
"Boy, did I learn that the hard way" - Woody (bartender on Cheers)
-
Irregardless of the debate on semantics, my employer does something similar. They make two deposits into my 401k over the course of the year, regardless of what I actually contribute... I could contribute $1 or $10,000 and it wouldn't change their contribution. Their deposits are based on two different profit metrics.
Personally I'm not a fan, as I'd prefer to have some sort of "say" in what my employer contribution is. Instead I just have to cross my fingers and hope we have a profitable year. I also think it's because they're cheap (their contribution is based on a million factors I have no control over), but I've had one or two people on this forum disagree with me, so my opinion definitely isn't universal.
In the end, I do invest in my 401k for tax reasons, but that's it. Everything in the 401k goes into the one index fund I have access to.
-
My point is best illustrated here: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/irregardless-versus-regardless.
"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.
"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."
Words are important. I am under no misconception, "irregardless" is not a proper word just like "conversate" is not a proper word. I doubt anyone here means to say "without without regard." It's nonsensical.
-
Pet peeve: "irregardless" is not a word, "regardless" is the word you're looking for.
... Language changes over time; deal with it. ...
I love when people who can't spell use this excuse.
I spell banana as "apple", language changes!
English is my second language so I'm hard on my self trying to get it right, and equally hard on those who grew up with it. (Not a great idea in an office of engineers)
-
Pet peeve: "irregardless" is not a word, "regardless" is the word you're looking for.
I'm surprised you don't also get worked up over sentences ended with prepositions.
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.... 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.... 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."
Words are important. I am under no misconception, "irregardless" is not a proper word just like "conversate" is not a proper word.
Is there a case for proper vs. improper words that doesn't depend on one group claiming superiority over another?
Inappropriateness of a word in certain circumstances may make it not a "proper" word, but is is still a word. In contrast, if you use too much "proper" English in certain areas you'll get run off with a gun pointed at you. Does that then make proper English not real words? In that case wouldn't the "improper" case actually be more proper?
IMO the only difference between a nonstandard word and a standard word is that all the people who cared that the word was nonstandard all died
-
Pet peeve: "irregardless" is not a word, "regardless" is the word you're looking for.
... Language changes over time; deal with it. ...
I love when people who can't spell use this excuse.
I spell banana as "apple", language changes!
That's a gross misrepresentation of warfreak2's position.
A question to the spelling/grammar police... since it is (a) clear that you understand what people are trying to communicate to you, (b) unlikely that you'll change their behavior in the future, and (c) likely that you'll piss off the person you're correcting (and probably also yourself), where is the utility in correcting everything? How is that more productive than letting it slide?
Also also, if you're gonna correct someone at least do them the courtesy of sending them a PM first. there's absolutely nothing to be gained for either the corrector or the correctee by doing it publicly.
-
There are a handful of my friends that get really worked up over this word. And for that reason: I only use it around them.
-
Pet peeve: "irregardless" is not a word, "regardless" is the word you're looking for.
I'm surprised you don't also get worked up over sentences ended with prepositions.
Touché.
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.... 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.... 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."
Words are important. I am under no misconception, "irregardless" is not a proper word just like "conversate" is not a proper word.
Is there a case for proper vs. improper words that doesn't depend on one group claiming superiority over another?
Inappropriateness of a word in certain circumstances may make it not a "proper" word, but is is still a word. In contrast, if you use too much "proper" English in certain areas you'll get run off with a gun pointed at you. Does that then make proper English not real words? In that case wouldn't the "improper" case actually be more proper?
IMO the only difference between a nonstandard word and a standard word is that all the people who cared that the word was nonstandard all died
Perhaps I meant to say proper word, instead of saying it isn't a word at all. The difference, here, is that "irregardless" doesn't mean what the speaker wants it to mean. In my mind, that is a much more egregious "word" choice than when people use colloquialisms or slang.
-
Perhaps I meant to say proper word, instead of saying it isn't a word at all. The difference, here, is that "irregardless" doesn't mean what the speaker wants it to mean.
(Emphasis added.)
It does mean what the speaker wants it to mean. What they want it to mean is "regardless." Since everyone understands it to mean that, even the pedants that know technically the prefix negates it realize what the speaker meant. Therefore it conveys meaning. The meaning the speaker intended.
Pretty much no one uses irregardless to mean "without without regard" - therefore all uses of it (however "incorrect" or "improper" or whatever they seem) convey that same meaning.
Do you ever get confused when someone uses it, or just annoyed? If the latter, clearly you understood their meaning.
The grammar nazi in me gets annoyed too. But you know what I do? Actively choose to get over it. The same way I actively choose to be grateful when bad things happen to me.
You can choose your reactions to things. Choose the one that improves your life, not makes it worse. Railing against language changing is an example of the latter, IMO.
:)
-
Perhaps I meant to say proper word, instead of saying it isn't a word at all.
I still maintain that there is no difference between a "proper" word and a regular word.
Is there a case for proper vs. improper words that doesn't depend on one group claiming superiority over another?
Inappropriateness of a word in certain circumstances may make it not a "proper" word, but is is still a word. In contrast, if you use too much "proper" English in certain areas you'll get run off with a gun pointed at you. Does that then make proper English not real words? In that case wouldn't the "improper" case actually be more proper?
The difference, here, is that "irregardless" doesn't mean what the speaker wants it to mean. In my mind, that is a much more egregious "word" choice than when people use colloquialisms or slang.
ok, but you clearly knew what they meant, and the vast majority of English speakers use it that way. So in a way that actually is what the word means, independent of what it used to or "should" mean.
again,
A question to the spelling/grammar police... since it is (a) clear that you understand what people are trying to communicate to you, (b) unlikely that you'll change their behavior in the future, and (c) likely that you'll piss off the person you're correcting (and probably also yourself), where is the utility in correcting everything? How is that more productive than letting it slide?
-
Perhaps I meant to say proper word, instead of saying it isn't a word at all. The difference, here, is that "irregardless" doesn't mean what the speaker wants it to mean.
(Emphasis added.)
It does mean what the speaker wants it to mean. What they want it to mean is "regardless." Since everyone understands it to mean that, even the pedants that know technically the prefix negates it realize what the speaker meant. Therefore it conveys meaning. The meaning the speaker intended.
Pretty much no one uses irregardless to mean "without without regard" - therefore all uses of it (however "incorrect" or "improper" or whatever they seem) convey that same meaning.
Words have meanings. "Irregardless" means "without without regard." The meaning of words is not dictated by the audience. I never argued that I didn't understand what the speaker was trying to convey, I argued that the incorrect "word" was used in conveyance of the message.
Let's say I told you that "I tripped and skipped to the ground." I really meant to say I "fell" to the ground. What is the meaning of "skipped?" Perhaps you know what I meant to say/convey, does that change the meaning of the word "skipped?"
Do you ever get confused when someone uses it, or just annoyed? If the latter, clearly you understood their meaning.
The grammar nazi in me gets annoyed too. But you know what I do? Actively choose to get over it. The same way I actively choose to be grateful when bad things happen to me.
You can choose your reactions to things. Choose the one that improves your life, not makes it worse. Railing against language changing is an example of the latter, IMO.
:)
I honestly wasn't annoyed. I was merely pointing out the incorrect use of a "word."
Nothing about this conversation makes my life worse. I just find it intriguing that so many people defend the use of such language, especially seemingly educated people.
-
Perhaps I meant to say proper word, instead of saying it isn't a word at all.
I still maintain that there is no difference between a "proper" word and a regular word.
Is there a case for proper vs. improper words that doesn't depend on one group claiming superiority over another?
Inappropriateness of a word in certain circumstances may make it not a "proper" word, but is is still a word. In contrast, if you use too much "proper" English in certain areas you'll get run off with a gun pointed at you. Does that then make proper English not real words? In that case wouldn't the "improper" case actually be more proper?
The difference, here, is that "irregardless" doesn't mean what the speaker wants it to mean. In my mind, that is a much more egregious "word" choice than when people use colloquialisms or slang.
ok, but you clearly knew what they meant, and the vast majority of English speakers use it that way. So in a way that actually is what the word means, independent of what it used to or "should" mean.
again,
A question to the spelling/grammar police... since it is (a) clear that you understand what people are trying to communicate to you, (b) unlikely that you'll change their behavior in the future, and (c) likely that you'll piss off the person you're correcting (and probably also yourself), where is the utility in correcting everything? How is that more productive than letting it slide?
I'm really not trying to be the grammar police, the wages for that position hardly keep up with inflation. See my comment above.
Forgive me for expressing my opinion on the internet. And for the record, my opinion was one sentence long and not meant to start a great debate about "irregardless."
-
so many people defend the use of such language, especially seemingly educated people.
zing!
-
I'm really not trying to be the grammar police, the wages for that position hardly keep up with inflation.
(Please open this link to play in the background before reading. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpZ3jPMM5Ac))
GlassStache, your arguments are perfectly cromulent and embiggen the nobility of this mustachian forum and I completely grok what you're doing. Further, your stance upon this subject clearly indicates you to be a hoopy frood irregardless of how others feel about linguistics, and are therefore not retarded or gay as alot of the others might claim. Nevermind the naysayers! Be okay about defending the English language, I say! You ain't doing nothing wrong!
Ya'll tearing this man down for helping to defend the Queens's English are nothing but HATERS and should chillax! You need to orientate yourselves to what real education says, and be fixin to get your knowledge on! Communication is ginormously important! Yous should wanna no how to communicate with others accurately and precisely like GlassStache done! His citation of these issues are the most crunk thing to happen to this community since lasterday! We must applaud his efforts! Pacifically his defense of proper grammar!
Thank you, GlassStache! As a great deal of appreciation for this, I must announce my bromance to the world towarding the man! You will always be awesomesauce in my book! Thank you!
-
I'm really not trying to be the grammar police, the wages for that position hardly keep up with inflation.
(Please open this link to play in the background before reading. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpZ3jPMM5Ac))
GlassStache, your arguments are perfectly cromulent and embiggen the nobility of this mustachian forum and I completely grok what you're doing. Further, your stance upon this subject clearly indicates you to be a hoopy frood irregardless of how others feel about linguistics, and are therefore not retarded or gay as alot of the others might claim. Nevermind the naysayers! Be okay about defending the English language, I say! You ain't doing nothing wrong!
Ya'll tearing this man down for helping to defend the Queens's English are nothing but HATERS and should chillax! You need to orientate yourselves to what real education says, and be fixin to get your knowledge on! Communication is ginormously important! Yous should wanna no how to communicate with others accurately and precisely like GlassStache done! His citation of these issues are the most crunk thing to happen to this community since lasterday! We must applaud his efforts! Pacifically his defense of proper grammar!
Thank you, GlassStache! As a great deal of appreciation for this, I must announce my bromance to the world towarding the man! You will always be awesomesauce in my book! Thank you!
Your appeal brings a tear to my eye. <sniff> Must be dusty in here.
-
I'm really not trying to be the grammar police, the wages for that position hardly keep up with inflation.
(Please open this link to play in the background before reading. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpZ3jPMM5Ac))
GlassStache, your arguments are perfectly cromulent and embiggen the nobility of this mustachian forum and I completely grok what you're doing. Further, your stance upon this subject clearly indicates you to be a hoopy frood irregardless of how others feel about linguistics, and are therefore not retarded or gay as alot of the others might claim. Nevermind the naysayers! Be okay about defending the English language, I say! You ain't doing nothing wrong!
Ya'll tearing this man down for helping to defend the Queens's English are nothing but HATERS and should chillax! You need to orientate yourselves to what real education says, and be fixin to get your knowledge on! Communication is ginormously important! Yous should wanna no how to communicate with others accurately and precisely like GlassStache done! His citation of these issues are the most crunk thing to happen to this community since lasterday! We must applaud his efforts! Pacifically his defense of proper grammar!
Thank you, GlassStache! As a great deal of appreciation for this, I must announce my bromance to the world towarding the man! You will always be awesomesauce in my book! Thank you!
Your post sir, is awesomesauce.
-
I usually don't care about language as long as the meaning is conveyed. I don't like irregardless because it is confusing if you break it down (as stated before). I similarly cringe when somebody says, "I could care less"; They really mean "I couldn't care less". We are expected to know that "I could care less" means the opposite of what it being said.
-
I usually don't care about language as long as the meaning is conveyed. I don't like irregardless because it is confusing if you break it down (as stated before). I similarly cringe when somebody says, "I could care less"; They really mean "I couldn't care less". We are expected to know that "I could care less" means the opposite of what it being said.
Rats! I knew I'd forgotten to work something into that last post. Fortunately, I could care less about editing it for inclusion.
-
I usually don't care about language as long as the meaning is conveyed. I don't like irregardless because it is confusing if you break it down (as stated before). I similarly cringe when somebody says, "I could care less"; They really mean "I couldn't care less". We are expected to know that "I could care less" means the opposite of what it being said.
Rats! I knew I'd forgotten to work something into that last post. Fortunately, I could care less about editing it for inclusion.
I was also surprised not to see some lost positives thrown in for good measure.
-
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.
This is an extremely silly thing to say. I get the same shudder when racists claim they're "just saying what everyone is thinking". Dictionaries, by and large, aren't written by prescriptivists; they merely report what words are used to mean what. They aren't secretly prescriptivist but just avoiding saying so to be polite.
What is a "proper" word, other than one that many people use and mutually understand? There are words which are best avoided in formal use, such as "won't" instead of "will not", but informal language isn't improper language.
I love when people who can't spell use this excuse.
I spell banana as "apple", language changes!
This is like that, except you are among a small group of people who think an "apple" is a round green crunchy fruit, rather than the long yellow soft fruit which everyone else agrees it is.
I usually don't care about language as long as the meaning is conveyed.
Then you have no problem with irregardless, which is as universally understood as most dictionary words.
-
I usually don't care about language as long as the meaning is conveyed. I don't like irregardless because it is confusing if you break it down (as stated before). I similarly cringe when somebody says, "I could care less"; They really mean "I couldn't care less". We are expected to know that "I could care less" means the opposite of what it being said.
Rats! I knew I'd forgotten to work something into that last post. Fortunately, I could care less about editing it for inclusion.
I was also surprised not to see some lost positives thrown in for good measure.
That's the thing with artisanal, hand-crafted humor. Sometimes, you just have to accept the flaws as a form of beauty unto itself.
-
Irregardlessly, the point is moo.
In my neck of the woods, it would have to be "the point is mute".
-
Irregardlessly, the point is moo.
It's like a cow's opinion. It just doesn't matter. It's moo.
-
Perhaps I meant to say proper word, instead of saying it isn't a word at all. The difference, here, is that "irregardless" doesn't mean what the speaker wants it to mean.
(Emphasis added.)
It does mean what the speaker wants it to mean. What they want it to mean is "regardless." Since everyone understands it to mean that, even the pedants that know technically the prefix negates it realize what the speaker meant. Therefore it conveys meaning. The meaning the speaker intended.
Pretty much no one uses irregardless to mean "without without regard" - therefore all uses of it (however "incorrect" or "improper" or whatever they seem) convey that same meaning.
Words have meanings. "Irregardless" means "without without regard." The meaning of words is not dictated by the audience. I never argued that I didn't understand what the speaker was trying to convey, I argued that the incorrect "word" was used in conveyance of the message.
You're missing a link in your argument.
Read the statement by you that I bolded. I claim the opposite, that it means exactly what the speaker meant it to mean, because everyone understands it. In fact, I would say the ONLY definition of "irregardless" is "regardless" - there is not a time that it is used to mean "without without regard" - thus the speaker is using it correctly (though I wouldn't use it personally).
The link you are missing is explaining to me how a word can convey the exact meaning the speaker intended to everyone that hears it, yet be the incorrect word.
Your skipped example is not compelling - it could cause confusion, as it would be logical for one to say: "Skipped? Did you mean ___?" and that sentence/question makes sense. The skipped word usage could confuse someone.
Anyone who says "Irregardless? Did you mean regardless?" is only doing it to be pedantic. They knew exactly what the person meant. An individual either doesn't know there's a difference (and thus treats them as the same word), or does know and know that people use it "wrongly" but thus then clearly knew what the speaker meant to say (regardless).
I am not convinced that a word which everyone understands what it means is the wrong word to use, and, more importantly (read the bold part again), it means exactly what the speaker meant it to mean.
-
Forgive me for expressing my opinion on the internet. And for the record, my opinion was one sentence long and not meant to start a great debate about "irregardless."
I'm curious, what is the difference between a discussion and a debate? Obviously you meant to start one (thus the thread) but not the other (thus the quote).
On another note, irregarding is not listed as a word in the dictionary, but I'm going to coin it to replace irregardless. I think no one will have a problem with this because, breaking down it's respective parts, the word clearly means 'without having regard.' Problem solved.
-
"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.
You know, being the irascible fellow that I am (Irish ancestry, perhaps), the assumption that the syllable ir- must always be a negative prefix really irritates me. It irks the iron of my soul, irrigates the iris of my eye... Ironic, isn't it?
-
Forgive me for expressing my opinion on the internet. And for the record, my opinion was one sentence long and not meant to start a great debate about "irregardless."
I'm curious, what is the difference between a discussion and a debate? Obviously you meant to start one (thus the thread) but not the other (thus the quote).
This thread was split from another thread about IRAs or something boring like that, by request of not-GlassStache, so the above statement is actually pretty accurate. Although I wish "OP" wouldn't get offended about having to defend his/her opinion ;-)
-
IRAs are negative As.
-
Well Shit....this had become a battle of witts! I 2 pee daily! luv'd the script! my eyes water'd in laughter.
-
It's not wrong, it just makes educated people think you are not well educated.
-
The English language is confusing and many words are used improperly all the time. I'm certainly guilty of occasional mistakes.
The one I always notice other people making (and make it a point to just smile instead of playing grammar police) is the Their/There/They're mistake. An elementary school teacher beat that one into my head one day and I've never forgotten their proper use.
Here's a fun example of how ridiculous this language actually is for those interested. Enjoy.
http://daryld.com/english-language/ Ex. - Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
-
The one I always notice other people making (and make it a point to just smile instead of playing grammar police) is the Their/There/They're mistake. An elementary school teacher beat that one into my head one day and I've never forgotten their proper use.
Even when you know the usage, you can still make a mistake.
I've typed the wrong Their/There/They're just as a typo just going too fast and muscle memory taking over, not because I didn't know the difference.
/shrug
Mistakes happen. To err is human, and all that.
-
I agree it's an honest mistake many times just like many other similar errors, I'm just stating it's one of the things I always notice since it was drilled into my head as a youngster. It was a teacher's pet peeve, so it became unforgettable to me.
I just laugh it off when I see it. Like you said earlier, you choose how to respond to it, and my response is a smile and a fond memory of an old teacher. Happy thoughts.
-
Anyone who says "Irregardless? Did you mean regardless?" is only doing it to be pedantic. They knew exactly what the person meant. An individual either doesn't know there's a difference (and thus treats them as the same word), or does know and know that people use it "wrongly" but thus then clearly knew what the speaker meant to say (regardless).
I am not convinced that a word which everyone understands what it means is the wrong word to use, and, more importantly (read the bold part again), it means exactly what the speaker meant it to mean.
[...]
Read the statement by you that I bolded. I claim the opposite, that it means exactly what the speaker meant it to mean, because everyone understands it. In fact, I would say the ONLY definition of "irregardless" is "regardless" - there is not a time that it is used to mean "without without regard" - thus the speaker is using it correctly (though I wouldn't use it personally).
Actually...I have to disagree. There was a time when the word "irregardless" was not used interchangeably with "regardless". It is thought that it used to be used interchangeably with the word "irrespective", which makes sense. Regardless and irrespective got all muddled and became irregardless. I'm not saying that you can't use it and be understood, but I think you're downplaying the significance. The way that our language (and thought, and culture) is structured is based largely on diametrically opposed ideas and words. If you agree at all with the anything in Simulations and Simulacra (which I think is pretty widely taught), then you agree that the meaning of many words is derived directly from their counterparts. So once we begin to say that something with a negative prefix means exactly the same thing as a word without a negative prefix, we're discussing a serious restructuring of language. Of course it won't happen across the board over night, and language is constantly evolving, but I'd argue it's still significant- it means that a standard (and fairly old) signifier is no longer relevant or reliable in this case. Irregardless, I wouldn't call someone out on it. Now I'm off to get an expresso- so I'll have to conversate on this more later. I think I said what I needed to say for all intensive purposes, and I couldn't care less if anyone responds to this post.
-
Actually...I have to disagree. There was a time when the word "irregardless" was not used interchangeably with "regardless".
And is that time today?
That's the only relevant part to me.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but it's irrelevant in this circumstance, because the word changed. If irregardless == regardless for everyone that hears it (even if some are annoyed that it means that, they understand what is meant), then we can move on.
It doesn't matter that "there was a time" they meant something different.
-
Wow! I recently found things to be too heated around the forums, so I took a couple of weeks off. To come back to this makes me laugh my ass off. First world problems, people!
-
Wow! I recently found things to be too heated around the forums, so I took a couple of weeks off. To come back to this makes me laugh my ass off. First world problems, people!
Shut up
-
Wow! I recently found things to be too heated around the forums, so I took a couple of weeks off. To come back to this makes me laugh my ass off. First world problems, people!
Glad you're back. :)
-
Wow! I recently found things to be too heated around the forums, so I took a couple of weeks off. To come back to this makes me laugh my ass off. First world problems, people!
Shut up
Ha.
About now GuitarStv would be chiming in with something outrageous...
-
The English language is confusing and many words are used improperly all the time. I'm certainly guilty of occasional mistakes.
The one I always notice other people making (and make it a point to just smile instead of playing grammar police) is the Their/There/They're mistake. An elementary school teacher beat that one into my head one day and I've never forgotten their proper use.
Here's a fun example of how ridiculous this language actually is for those interested. Enjoy.
http://daryld.com/english-language/ Ex. - Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
Some more English language fun for those interested:
The Chaos by Charivarius (http://www.hep.wisc.edu/~jnb/charivarius.html)
The English Spelling Society (http://www.spellingsociety.org/news/media/poems.php)
-
Actually...I have to disagree. There was a time when the word "irregardless" was not used interchangeably with "regardless".
And is that time today?
That's the only relevant part to me.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but it's irrelevant in this circumstance, because the word changed. If irregardless == regardless for everyone that hears it (even if some are annoyed that it means that, they understand what is meant), then we can move on.
It doesn't matter that "there was a time" they meant something different.
What about in writing, writing spans centuries and is still referenced. In that case I'd say the past is relevant, unless you're assuming a distinction between written and spoken word. If it's understood to verbally say "irregardless" to mean "regardless", then is it also ok to use it in writing? See what I'm getting at? It's interesting because then it can get really confusing, if we write "irregardless" to mean "regardless", and in reading come across "irregardless" meaning "irrespective", THINGS GET CRAZY!
-
Actually...I have to disagree. There was a time when the word "irregardless" was not used interchangeably with "regardless".
And is that time today?
That's the only relevant part to me.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but it's irrelevant in this circumstance, because the word changed. If irregardless == regardless for everyone that hears it (even if some are annoyed that it means that, they understand what is meant), then we can move on.
It doesn't matter that "there was a time" they meant something different.
What about in writing, writing spans centuries and is still referenced. In that case I'd say the past is relevant, unless you're assuming a distinction between written and spoken word. If it's understood to verbally say "irregardless" to mean "regardless", then is it also ok to use it in writing? See what I'm getting at? It's interesting because then it can get really confusing, if we write "irregardless" to mean "regardless", and in reading come across "irregardless" meaning "irrespective", THINGS GET CRAZY!
That's why we have a wonderful thing called context. :)
-
Actually...I have to disagree. There was a time when the word "irregardless" was not used interchangeably with "regardless".
And is that time today?
That's the only relevant part to me.
I agree with the rest of what you wrote, but it's irrelevant in this circumstance, because the word changed. If irregardless == regardless for everyone that hears it (even if some are annoyed that it means that, they understand what is meant), then we can move on.
It doesn't matter that "there was a time" they meant something different.
What about in writing, writing spans centuries and is still referenced. In that case I'd say the past is relevant, unless you're assuming a distinction between written and spoken word. If it's understood to verbally say "irregardless" to mean "regardless", then is it also ok to use it in writing? See what I'm getting at? It's interesting because then it can get really confusing, if we write "irregardless" to mean "regardless", and in reading come across "irregardless" meaning "irrespective", THINGS GET CRAZY!
That's why we have a wonderful thing called context. :)
NO CONTEXT!!!!!!!! GRAMMAR MUST BE A STEADFAST IRON FIST CRUSHING THE LINGUISTIC EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT!!!! ALL PRAISE STRUNK & WHITE!!!!
-
Wherefore this resistentialism?
-
I have a reputation among my friends for dropping "irregardlessly" into conversations to see if anyone "corrects" me and says "no, the correct term is irregardless." Maybe i'm a jerk, but this makes my day.
I never correct them.
-
Also guilty of saying "irregardless" just to mess with people. Also "supposably."
Unsolicited grammar corrections, especially in front of other people, are about as misguided as calling out someone at a fancy dinner party for using the wrong fork, IMO.
-
Also guilty of saying "irregardless" just to mess with people. Also "supposably."
Unsolicited grammar corrections, especially in front of other people, are about as misguided as calling out someone at a fancy dinner party for using the wrong fork, IMO.
Sometime I just go full LOLcat. e.g. "you has a button" "I is done eated" I think I'm doing damage to my non-native English speaking SO.
-
I had a friend once, who turned out not to be much of a friend and this was one of the things that turned me off him....
I guess i used the word "irregardless" (oh no!) in a conversation with him, it obviously didn't mean much to me since I don't remember saying it, though I won't deny I have used it since :). The dude came up to me a few weeks later and brought up, in a fairly arrogant and aggressive manner, the fact that I had used this word and it wasn't really a word. He and his friends (acquaintances of mine) had discussed my poor grammar, had a good laugh about it before he approached me. I guess what he wanted was for me to admit that I, (my first language is english), used a word that didn't exist, while he (his first language is german) caught my faux pas. It was a really weird situation where he just wanted to keep pressing the issue, I think to try and make me feel small and stupid, which I did for a short moment, before realizing that anybody who put that much energy into critiquing a person's grammar, going as far as to discuss it amongst friends as to whether it was horrible for me to say it and then approach me weeks later to point out my stupidity in person, must realllllly hate that word, and also be kinda crazy.
I could understand that kind of insult if a kitten died every time I said "irregardless", but as there is no pile of dead kittens, i think bad grammar is a victimless crime.
We're not friends anymore, and if I happen to say the word irregardless in front of my DH, we have a good laugh....and then he corrects me.
Thanks for the dictionary reference, if I was the kind of person to hold a grudge I might just forward that to my know-it-all ex friend.
-
I had a friend once, who turned out not to be much of a friend and this was one of the things that turned me off him....
I guess i used the word "irregardless" (oh no!) in a conversation with him, it obviously didn't mean much to me since I don't remember saying it, though I won't deny I have used it since :). The dude came up to me a few weeks later and brought up, in a fairly arrogant and aggressive manner, the fact that I had used this word and it wasn't really a word. He and his friends (acquaintances of mine) had discussed my poor grammar, had a good laugh about it before he approached me. I guess what he wanted was for me to admit that I, (my first language is english), used a word that didn't exist, while he (his first language is german) caught my faux pas. It was a really weird situation where he just wanted to keep pressing the issue, I think to try and make me feel small and stupid, which I did for a short moment, before realizing that anybody who put that much energy into critiquing a person's grammar, going as far as to discuss it amongst friends as to whether it was horrible for me to say it and then approach me weeks later to point out my stupidity in person, must realllllly hate that word, and also be kinda crazy.
I could understand that kind of insult if a kitten died every time I said "irregardless", but as there is no pile of dead kittens, i think bad grammar is a victimless crime.
We're not friends anymore, and if I happen to say the word irregardless in front of my DH, we have a good laugh....and then he corrects me.
Thanks for the dictionary reference, if I was the kind of person to hold a grudge I might just forward that to my know-it-all ex friend.
Thats a terrible story! I feel for you! But Irregardless of how things went down I am sure your much better off not knowing someone like that! :-) Ridiculous, sounds like a person with a lot of issues.