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.