Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#91

Post by thechao »

kazinator wrote: post #81
thechao wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure conjecture on my part: irregardless is an intensifier of dismissal. It allows the word to start with a vowel. Since (American) English requires exhortations to start with a consonant, it forces the speaker to begin the sound with a glottal stop. Initial glottal stops are markers for interjective cursing, like “‘Asshole!”

The conjecture is likely wrong. Some speakers simply reach for irregardless whenever they want to say "without regard" and are never heard using regardless .

I dunno: perhaps irregardless began as an interjection, and then became the norm for certain speakers? Similar to hypercorrection.

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#92

Post by NoSorryCannot »

kazinator wrote: post #78

Merriam-Webster labels the word as "nonstandard" and recommends that regardless be used, all the while assuring readers that "irregardless" is indeed a word that has been in use by English speakers for "well over 200 years" and by "a large number of people across a wide geographic range and with a consistent meaning". And, note, that same dictionary makes no disparaging remarks about the abuse of "literally" as a gen…

One of the chief functions of a mainstream dictionary is to guide users on usage. Irregardless of the principles possessed by Merriam-Webster's editors, they still have to warn readers when a usage will be conspicuous. Chumming the water for pedants can only be a distraction.

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#93

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

I feel the evolution of language reflects important details about the culture wielding it.

I think a strong example is the word 'cult'. It once referred to a small sect or faith - and that's all. Leaders of established sects so often demonized small, competing faiths that cult became redefined to refer to evil and dangerous groups of worshipers. Notably, no other word ever emerged to take it's place.

I really wanted a tool to evidence how changes in language reflected changes in society's beliefs. I figured an authoritarian source of English definitions would be that tool but there isn't any such thing.*

In the end I had to adopt the more difficult approach of finding examples that my audience could relate with.

* (For a time I believed that the Oxford English Dictionary was that source, due to the 60-odd years between the 1st and 2nd editions. I didn't realize tho that supplements were added on an ongoing basis.)

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#94

Post by skissane »

darksaints wrote: post #62
skissane wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, “terrorism” has a political objective. Randomly killing people for non-political reasons, such as done by some mass shooters or serial killers, is not terrorism, even if in some cases it kills more people than many acts of terrorism do.

I suppose the word political could encompass this, but it should also be pointed out it is political in the sense of having an intended purpose for societal change. That goes beyond what most people consider politics. It could be religious, ethnocentric, ideological, philosophical, etc. Even the actions of the luddites could fall under terrorism.

> it should also be pointed out it is political in the sense of having an intended purpose for societal change

The Christchurch mosque shooting was very consciously political - the perpetrator published a manifesto, he pre-announced and live streamed his crime to an online political discussion community dominated by the far right, he was hoping to inspire copycats through which to change society (he hoped to trigger the genocide of the Muslim minority in Western societies). Compare that to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting - in the later case, the perpetrator didn’t prepare a manifesto. His motivations appeared to be primarily personal. Like everyone, he had some political views which investigators pieced together from writings and communications he left behind, but he made no attempt to communicate a clear political justification for his monstrous act.

Both shootings were horrific acts of evil. But only one was clearly intended as political. Only one was a clear case of terrorism

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#95

Post by skissane »

ukj wrote: post #52
skissane wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t it be both at the same time? I realise in some people’s usage the two terms are mutually exclusive, but not everyone agrees with that usage.

Sure. That is how perspectivism works. Or, if you want to stretch a metaphor you could say that terrorism/freedom-fighting are in superposition.

One person may adopt value-laden definitions, another person may adopt value-neutral ones. Arguably, the term “perspectivism” is more appropriate for the former than the later.

The fact that an act occurred, and the question of what its announced motivations are, is not (usually) something that depends on your perspective. People with widely different moral and political views can agree on those descriptive facts even if they make completely opposite value judgements of them.

(Conspiracy theorists sometimes dispute the fact that an attack occurs and the real motivations behind it. But there are plenty of terrorist attacks which they don’t bother doing this to.)

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#96

Post by Udik »

Jedd wrote: post #71

I recall my mum, it must have been in the 1980's, engaging in much eye-rolling and tut-tutting at our (Australia) then prime minister, Bob Hawke, using the word 'irregardless'. Bob was ostensibly quite charismatic, but no one could accuse him of being an especially thoughtful communicator. In retrospect it's fairly typical behaviour for less literate types to adopt a word that sounds sophisticated beyond their standa…

> and assume it's sufficiently cromulent for formal use

Ha! Good one.

> the use of the word 'decimate' as an alternative spelling for 'destroy'

An alternative spelling? I don't think so.

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#97

Post by Udik »

vbtemp wrote: post #55
irthomasthomas wrote: post #51

My favorite/worst example of language evolution is the word factoid. Factoid literally meant a thing resembling a fact (i.e. a false fact) which is believed to be true after being repeated in print. Now, those same writers who where presumably spreading factoids, have inverted its meaning to be 'a minor, but true fact' [0]. [0] http://www.doctoryourself.com/hoffer_factoids.html

Would a more correct version of a minor, true fact be a _factino_? Kind of like a Plutino or Neutrino?

Trivia?

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#98

Post by Udik »

thechao wrote: post #91
kazinator wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The conjecture is likely wrong. Some speakers simply reach for irregardless whenever they want to say "without regard" and are never heard using regardless .

I dunno: perhaps irregardless began as an interjection, and then became the norm for certain speakers? Similar to hypercorrection.

Just a mix-up of irrespectively and regardless.

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#99

Post by darksaints »

skissane wrote: post #94
darksaints wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose the word political could encompass this, but it should also be pointed out it is political in the sense of having an intended purpose for societal change. That goes beyond what most people consider politics. It could be religious, ethnocentric, ideological, philosophical, etc. Even the actions of the luddites could fall under terrorism.

> it should also be pointed out it is political in the sense of having an intended purpose for societal change The Christchurch mosque shooting was very consciously political - the perpetrator published a manifesto, he pre-announced and live streamed his crime to an online political discussion community dominated by the far right, he was hoping to inspire copycats through which to change society (he hoped to trigger…

I'm in full agreement. I'm just saying that a lot of people have a very narrow definition of political, and can easily fall into the trap of seeing that definition being a left vs right thing, or whatever political lense they tend to bias towards. For example, while the Sandy Hook shooting was distinctly personal in motivation, the 2014 Isla Vista shooting looked very similar but was very political, and thus terroristic. It just happens that the political motivation was one not commonly viewed as being political.

Re: “Irregardless” is part of a penumbra of unorthodox English words

#100

Post by amanaplanacanal »

balfirevic wrote: post #86
jt2190 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is obviously a stupid word, and that makes it stupider. This is the social signaling aspect of language at work, not the communication part. Human brains can trivially digest the correct meaning of “irregardless”. Using the word, however, marks someone as not having had a “proper” education, and would perhaps brand the speaker as “stupid”, “irregardless” of whether the idea they were expressing was intelligent o…

> Human brains can trivially digest the correct meaning of “irregardless”. It can also understand the meaning of "iregardles", "ireggardless" and "irregardlless". Is that really a sufficient condition for the word to be considered correct?

Given that the purpose of language is to convey meaning, I'd say yes.
Post reply on HN