another view

[phillips.alex]

you are absolutely right. irregardless means without regard, which also means regardless. therefore, irregardless means regardless. kinda like water and H2O. they are the same thing, with two different words to describe them. They are both words, meaning the same thing. another example: swam and swum. they also mean the same thing, and are different words. just because the prefix "ir" is used does not mean that the word becomes "without without regard". Examples of this would be irritated. no, it does not mean "without ritated." as you may think, instead it means to provoke impatience or anger. If you have any other questions about usage of words, please ask.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by phillips.alex
irregardless means without regard, which also means regardless. therefore, irregardless means regardless.

Oh, the state of public education these days.

The suffix "less" means without. Regardless is "without regard". The prefix "ir" is also a negative, thus "Irregardless" is a ******* word literally meaning "not without regard," or, logically, with regard.

If you have any other questions about usage of words, please ask.

Ask you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You're too much.

Instead, let's consult the dictionary one more time:

"Irregardless"

ADVERB: Nonstandard Regardless.
ETYMOLOGY: Probably blend of irrespective and regardless.
USAGE NOTE: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

And then there is this:

"The Third Edition of The American Heritage Dictionary states firmly that “the label ‘nonstandard’ does not begin to do justice to the status of this word” and “it has no legitimate antecedents in either standard or nonstandard varieties of English”.

And this:

"While it is certainly a commonly heard word, its usage is considered substandard because the word is illogical. "Regardless" already means "without regard," so when we add the negative prefix "ir-," we create a double negative. In essence, we end up saying "not without regard," which means, of course, "with regard"--the opposite of what we intend."

[Edited by GarthB on Oct 26th, 2005 at 10:09 PM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

Yes, Alex, just like "antidisestablishmentarianism" means "against disestablishmentarianism" or "in favor of establishmentarianism". And that is true regardless of what you say.

[Tim C]

The question is:

Has this thread become flammable or imflamable?

[BigUmp56]

Surely you jest! I'm certain you meant to ask whether or not the thread has become flammable, or inflammable.

I'm not certain what "imflammable" means exactly.


Tim.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by BigUmp56


Surely you jest! I'm certain you meant to ask whether or not the thread has become flammable, or inflammable.

I'm not certain what "imflammable" means exactly.


Tim.

Main Entry: in·flam·ma·ble
Pronunciation: in-'fla-m&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Medieval Latin inflammabilis, from Latin inflammare
1 : FLAMMABLE
2 : easily inflamed , excited, or angered : IRASCIBLE
- in·flam·ma·bil·i·ty /-"fla-m&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- inflammable noun
- in·flam·ma·ble·ness /-'fla-m&-b&l-n&s/ noun
- in·flam·ma·bly /-blE/ adverb

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by GarthB

Main Entry: in·flam·ma·ble
Pronunciation: in-'fla-m&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: French, from Medieval Latin inflammabilis, from Latin inflammare
1 : FLAMMABLE
2 : easily inflamed , excited, or angered : IRASCIBLE
- in·flam·ma·bil·i·ty /-"fla-m&-'bi-l&-tE/ noun
- inflammable noun
- in·flam·ma·ble·ness /-'fla-m&-b&l-n&s/ noun
- in·flam·ma·bly /-blE/ adverb

Garth, he knows what inflammable means. He doesn't know what "imflammable" means!

[GarthB]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

Garth, he knows what inflammable means. He doesn't know what "imflammable" means!

I do.

It means that his right index finger got stuck in the crack. (The crack between keys that is.)

[umpduck11]

Originally posted by phillips.alex
kinda like water and H2O. they are the same thing, with two different words to describe them. They are both words, meaning the same thing.

H2O is a word? Hmmmm, I don't recall ever before
seeing a word that contains a digit.Guess I need
to crawl out from under whatever rock I've been
under,because I had two English professors in
college that railed against the use of "that
*******ized word",irregardless.
I always thought H2O was the designation for
the elemental composition that is water.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by phillips.alex
They are both words, meaning the same thing. another example: swam and swum.

??? "swam" and "swum" are not synonyms.

You are correct that (1) the English language changes*, and that, (2) "irregardless" is becoming more common. I'm not oppoed to the changes in language, but I fail to see how this is beneficial -- it doesn't add anything to the definition, doesn't simplify the description, it isn't shorter, or more precise, ...

* -- On the basketball board, someone posted an interesting claim about "you" being plural. Just yesterday in the newspaper there was an article about how "you" had replaced "thee," "thou," and "ye" in a relatively short period of time back in the 1500s. The word "you" originally had one grammatical job (plural object); now it has four.

Note 1: I intentionally placed any grammatical, spelling or other errors in this post to provide pleasure to the reader in finding and correcting any such mistakes.

Note 2: While reading through my dictionary to research this post, I discovered that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary. Interesting.

[RPatrino]

I know for sure that this thread HAS become ignorable.

BP

[Sal Giaco]

Originally posted by RPatrino
I know for sure that this thread HAS become ignorable.

BP

I second that motion - in fact, we as umpires should be embarrassed at how we treat each other on this board. Some of you (and I can honestly say "you" because I don't take part in the mudslinging) lose perspective of the officiating relevence on this forum to argue over meaningless points (ie grammer, resumes, etc). Come on guys, let's do a gut check, leave the egos at the door and stick to the umpire related issues.

[jicecone]

Originally posted by Tim C
The question is:

Has this thread become flammable or imflamable?

Same difference.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Sal Giaco

I second that motion - in fact, we as umpires should be embarrassed at how we treat each other on this board. Some of you (and I can honestly say "you" because I don't take part in the mudslinging) lose perspective of the officiating relevence on this forum to argue over meaningless points (ie grammer, resumes, etc). Come on guys, let's do a gut check, leave the egos at the door and stick to the umpire related issues.

I'll agree with this to a certain level. I do know that when I hear someone say "irregardless" my opinion of that person goes down dramatically. Regardless of whether "irregardless" is in the dictionary, it is not considered correct usage.

As officials, it's our job to communicate well, at times, with coaches, players, ADs, etc. We should strive to communicate properly at all times. This includes proper grammar and proper word usage.

If others don't feel that's important, that's fine, too.

[Sal Giaco]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I'll agree with this to a certain level. I do know that when I hear someone say "irregardless" my opinion of that person goes down dramatically. Regardless of whether "irregardless" is in the dictionary, it is not considered correct usage.

As officials, it's our job to communicate well, at times, with coaches, players, ADs, etc. We should strive to communicate properly at all times. This includes proper grammar and proper word usage.

If others don't feel that's important, that's fine, too.

Rich,
I definitely agree that we, as officials, communicate properly and use proper grammer - I also feel it is important. However, my point is that I think this thread is a classic example of taking things a little to far (talking about different dictionaries, etc)

I think there are times when we need to just walk away rather than beating a dead horse.