Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site voder.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!nsc!voder!gino
From: gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Semantic Reversals (irregardless) (Postscript)
Message-ID: <700@voder.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 14:12:39 EST
Article-I.D.: voder.700
Posted: Thu Mar  7 14:12:39 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 07:47:45 EST
References: <108@ISM780.UUCP> <947@dual.UUCP> <446@scc.UUCP> <950@dual.UUCP> <953@dual.UUCP>
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Lines: 19

[don't eat this line irregardless of bugs]

On the subject of `irregardless' appearing in the American Heritage Dictionary:
> It really makes me wonder whether perhaps I should rethink my preference in
> dictionaries.  AHD has been my favorite since my father (who was at the time
> an English literature professor) got a complimentary copy when it first came
> out.  Now I'm not so sure . . .
> Helen Anne
Whoa there!  Why should a dictionary NOT include words you're likely to see
in your reading (and hear too)?  And my copy of the AHD states VERY CLEARLY
that `irregardless' is considered non-standard.
Of course, this is the old prescriptive-descriptive argument, which is
basically religious in nature (and in truth, I vacillate almost criminally
on the subject).
The AHD is probably my favorite, but there are natheless times when I want
to throw it out the window ... :-).
-- 
Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino)
The accidents expressed above are opinions.