On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 05:32:58AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:17:05AM -0600, Kent West wrote:
>
> OK, I guess I had the same history teacher as Bush. (Those who forget
> history are doomed to repeat it. 8:o)
>
> > (Irregardless
>
> Wouldn't that mean "with regaurd to?"
Okay... I tried really hard to ignore "irregardless" when I saw it go by
the first time, but...
Nope, I'm afraid it wouldn't mean "with regard to" (with or without the
"u"...) :P
It doesn't actually mean anything at all, because it's not a valid
word.
"Regardless" is a perfectly good word.
"Irrespective" is another perfectly good word, with a very similar
meaning.
Mix 'em together and you get one of those stubborn, recurring mistakes
that make teachers and lovers of our poor abused language wince.
And a double negative contained within a single word.
Just in case you caught that, and were making a play on the double
negative... sorry for the pedantic response...
It would come out as "with {regard|respect} for..." which is
surprisingly different from "with respect to..."
Woot! Signify is right on...
--
,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> -ScruLoose- | WARNING: Contains Language! <
> Please do not | -Neil Gaiman <
> reply off-list. | <
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Attachment:
pgpVu6bUIS4eI.pgp
Description: PGP signature