Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    Pet peeves
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Pet peeves Login/Join
 
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
wfc said:

it tastes like licking cold dew off of dry, sweet strawgrass.o

If there were more writers who used this kind of evocative language then the cause of beer would be better served.

I haven't come across this particular beer but will go to my local supermarket (not a specialist liquor store) today to seek it out. Safeway, where I buy most of my beer for home drinking, has around fifty different "real" bottled UK beers and probably a similar number from the rest of the world - including Anchor Steam from San Francisco.

Should I want to do so, I could also buy wine from about thirty different countries (including England). And that's not even to start on the range of whiskies.

Now you know why I don't want to leave England...!

Try to get that sort of range in any other country's, quite ordinary, stores.

Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
Quote.

Here in Greece, bars with 'gourmet' beers are becoming quite popular of late.

******************************

It's sad that Greece, a wonderful country that was brewing when we in the UK were still wearing woad does not now produce any good beer. I fear it has suffered, like so many other countries, from the rampages of the chemical factories.

If you can brew beer for 2 (cents, pence) a pint and sell it for 2 pounds or 4 dollars - then you'll do that in preference to brewing it for 50 cents or pence and selling it for the same price - if making money is what you want to do.

You need only to persuade a gullible public, through the power of marketing, that your product is the best and, before long, it will be - it'll be the only product there is.

Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Well, Richard! You certainly are the beer expert here today!
quote:
Tapping the side of a Guinness glass is a genuine technique. Guinness is a heavy beer and it takes a long time for the carbon dioxide bubbles to rise to the top to form the head.


I am confused, here though. My son loves Guinness Stout. I bought him a 6 pack for his birthday last week. He poured the beer into a glass over the back of a spoon confused then told me to watch the bubbles in the glass sink! razz Now, was he playing some game with me?

Personally, I seldom consume any alcohol whatsoever. I buy a bottle of wine at Christmas for my husband, and we enjoy it till the next Christmas. So this is all new territory for me.
 
Posts: 1412 | Location: Buffalo, NY, United StatesReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
1. The bubbles in Guinness rise - that is an unbreakable law of physics. However, when beer is first poured into a glass there will be a short period during which the bubbles follow the swirl of the liquid before rising. Even in American beers this can be seen.

However, because of the relatively high viscosity of Guinness, the whole process takes much longer and, in Ireland (which is the only place where the drink can be sampled at its best), serving times in the order of two or more minutes are usual before the drink has settled.

"6-packs" of Guinness are better than most American beers in the same way that a Model T Ford is better than walking. However, a proper drink of Real Ale is better than the 6-pack in the same way that a Rolls-Royce is better than a Model T.

2. I have just visited Safeway and they have no Kolsch. Grolsch, they do have, along with many other Belgian and German beers. I will have to research.

One interesting thing, though, that non-UK readers may not know.

The UK is the ONLY country in the world where Czechoslavakian Budweiser and American Budweiser can both be sold as Budweiser. Anheuser Busch, the world's largest beer manufacturer hate this, of course, and have been trying very hard to stop Budvar, the brewers of the real thing, to stop selling it as Budweiser. If they do they will be able to suggest that their American imitation of a German imitation of a Czecholsovakian beer style is "the real thing".

The amazing thing is, though, that the American chemical concoction, complete with its rice additives and brewed under licence in England, was being sold for the equivalent of £3.30 a litre. The genuine article, made only from water, malt and hops and imported from Czechoslovakia was being sold for only £3.10 a litre.

Guess where the extra amount on the price of the "American" product was going. Do I hear the words "profit" and "shareholders" anywhere? And the savings made through the far lower margin on the Czech product - where are they going? Do I hear the word "customer"?

Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
OK Richard! I know I watched bubbles go down in a glass of Guinness, yet you clearly state they go up! I have done a little research here.This site states that: "The bubbles in the center of the glass, free from the effects of the wall, move upwards most quickly and drag liquid with them. But the liquid moving up in the center of the glass, having nowhere else to go, must eventually turn towards the walls and start to move downward. The liquid moving downward near the walls tries to drag down bubbles with it. Larger bubbles have sufficient buoyancy to resist but smaller bubbles (less than 0.05 mm) are continuously dragged to the bottom of the glass."

So, there we have it. Some go up, and some go down! But at least I know my eyes weren't playing tricks on me! wink
 
Posts: 1412 | Location: Buffalo, NY, United StatesReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
Indeed.

However, unless there is a source of energy to create a convection current, eventually the bubbles will all end up at the top of the glass.

Initially they will form a "head" (which in the case of a realtively viscous beer like Guinness may last for several hours) but eventually this will disappear as the containing liquid film evaporates.

Eventually the liquid will be completely "flat" as all the carbon dioxide bubbles out of solution, although this may take many hours.

As it is a very dense gas, carbon dioxide will remain as a "blanket" on the top of a glass for quite some time until the processes of gas dispersion do their job.

If there is a convection current (such as that caused by heating the Guinness on a stove) then the bubbles will remain in motion continually until all the carbon dioxide has been driven from solution. This will take far less time, though, than if the glass were simply left to settle on its own.

Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
What a wonderful discussion! I did not know about tapping the side of a beer mug with a coin. It is obvious to me how much I don't know about beer. I would love to visit some of the European pubs. And, I do think we are talking words here because of the wonderful descriptions.

One comment though to Richard: Do you think the French would agree with your comparison of wine versus beer?
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Now that we've explored the world of beer, maybe we can get back to pet peeves.

One word that irks me is "verbage" for "verbiage". I've rambled on about this before, so I'll leave it at that. (When you've got something to say, speak up; when you don't, shut up!)

Another word that has been used widely since September 11, 2001 is "terrorism", often mispronounced "terrism". What happened to the "or"? People in the government and the news media talk about "terrists" and "terrism".

I hate to hear "llama" pronounced "lama". A "llama", a South American animal, should be pronounced "yama" (the spanish "ll" is pronounced "y"). That's the way I learned it in Spanish class many years ago, and that's the only correct way, as far as I'm concerned. Alas, AHD doesn't agree with me (what do they know); they only give the "lama" pronounciation. Merriam-Webster gives both pronounciations: "lama" first; "yama" second. Remember: "llama" is a South American animal related to the camel; "lama" is a Buddhist monk.

"Bonsai" is also mispronounced. The Japanese "o" and "i" are sounded as they are in "police". The "ai" combination is pronounced like our long "i". If you can say "bone" and "sigh", you can say "bonsai". "Bonsai" is often mispronounced "banzai". "Banzai" began as a battle cry and is now often used as a cheer (may you live ten thousand years). Pronounce the "a" as in "father"; thus "ban" rhymes with "fawn".

Someone else was irritated by "aks" for "ask". Please remember that people's pronounciation is a product of their education, culture and physical limitations. Some people simply cannot make certain sounds. I think "aks" fits in this category.

I knew a man once whose last name ended in "th" and he pronounced it as if it ended in "f". He certainly didn't intentially mispronounce his own name! He just couldn't pronounce "th".

I have a hard time with "s". I would whistle when I made the "s" sound, until a speech teacher in 3rd grade helped me. I still have trouble with certain words and letter combinations. I have a hard time with the "sl" combination my own last name! I had a roommate in college who didn't know how to say my last name until I spelled it for the door label. He just couldn't understand me.

We all know people who slur their speech and mispronounce words, but be patient with them. Sometimes they can't help it.

As Morgan Freeman said in Driving Miss Daisy: "I'm doing the best I can."

Tinman smile

[This message was edited by tinman on Mon Sep 9th, 2002 at 1:51.]
 
Posts: 2772 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Granted tinman, there are many people who have speech problems and cannot pronounce certain sounds, but I highly doubt that 'ask' belongs to this category. I think the same people who say 'aks' instead of 'ask' are perfectly capable of saying 'scoot' and 'skedaddle'. I think it's more a problem of education as you mentioned elsewhere. They were probably never corrected by their teachers.

Being a teacher does create problems for me at times in this respect. While it's perfectly acceptable to correct students in the classroom and your children at home, I often have to bite my tongue in conversation when someone pronounces something wrong or uses incorrect grammar for fear of seeming to be didactic.
 
Posts: 266 | Location: GreeceReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
OK.
In no particular order (apart from my favourite which I'll save until last) here are some of my pet peeves. Apologies if any have been covered before in the thread.

People who confuse imply and infer, especially people who say 'what are you inferring'.

People who confuse lend and borrow. More than anything this earned me a reputation as a pedant because whenever anyone says 'can I lend your biro/book/whatever' I reply 'to whom?'.
'Borrow me your pen' which one of my colleagues used grates even more.

The phrases 'do you know what I mean' and 'do you know what I mean, like'. These examples of verbal padding are thankfully falling out of fashion among the young. I recall overhearing a conversation on the bus one evening in which they were used (albeit shortened to a kind of single grunt that you would have to spell
"na'a'a'mean'lk*") at least two dozen times in about thirty minutes. By the end of it I wanted to scream
"OF COURSE SHE KNOWS WHAT YOU MEAN ! YOU'RE SPEAKING THE SAME LANGUAGE YOU MORONS!"

All of these are pet peeves but my all time number one is people who write 'of' when they mean 'have' just because they are incapable of pronouncing the difference when speaking. I used to work in the I.T. department for the police and one of my colleagues there who had to write reports that were distributed to senior civilian and police staff always used 'of'.

"This would of caused the failure..." etc.

We drilled him over and over in the difference but absolutely nothing could get him to write 'have'. It's a few years since I worked there but he's probably still doing it.


* n.b. those aren't apostrophes, they're glottal stops.

Habent Abdenda Omnes Praeter Me ac Simiam Meam

Read all about my travels around the world here.

[This message was edited by BobHale on Mon Sep 9th, 2002 at 4:00.]
 
Posts: 7870 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
I think the use of "would've" and "could've" and the like is the reason people tend to use "of" in place of "have". The "'ve" does certainly sound like "of". Not that anyone says "I of got a luvverly bunch of coconuts."

Not that I'm excusing it, mind...
 
Posts: 10930 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Not that anyone says "I of got a luvverly bunch of coconuts."


And how do you announce your coconuts, Arnie? red face
 
Posts: 1412 | Location: Buffalo, NY, United StatesReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
I doubt that the French, or any other major wine-producing country, would agree about my "wine versus beer" argument.

But that is because their beliefs are just that. Beliefs. And the strongest beliefs are usually those for which there is the least basis of fact!

Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Richard, I am waiting for Safi to get back from his looooong trip so that he can address wine versus beer, from the French perspective! He will probably have a lot to say about the French thread, too.

As far as pet peeves, I hate irregardless, instead of regardless. In fact, a telemarketer called me the other day and used the word "irregardless". I was not in a good mood to start with, and I said, "Why not just say 'regardless'. What's the point of the 'ir'?" I threw him for a loop, and he hung up! razz
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'm sorry, this isn't so much about words as it is about a pet peeve, and your comment, Kalleh, brought it to mind.

There is nothing I hate more than tellemarketers. But I got a wonderful e-mail with a simple solution today. Simply say four words to them! "Please hold a minute." Then lay the phone down and walk away. You will know it's safe to hang up the phone when you hear the beeping from the phone company. I'm going to try it the next time I get a call!
 
Posts: 1412 | Location: Buffalo, NY, United StatesReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Tinman wrote:
quote:
One word that irks me is "verbage" for "verbiage". I've rambled on about this before, so I'll leave it at that. (When you've got something to say, speak up; when you don't, shut up!)

Along the lines of the "age" words, I found this this question in a word column of a newspaper:
"If we can say mileage, acreage, yardage and footage, why can't we say inchage?"
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
People (including all singers everywhere) who believe the word miracle is pronounced mi - rick - ul.
The 'a' is pronounced with the neutral schwa sound that is the most common vowel sound in the language. You could just about convince me if you pronounced it mi - rack - ul but not mi - rick - ul.

Habent Abdenda Omnes Praeter Me ac Simiam Meam

Read all about my travels around the world here.
 
Posts: 7870 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted Hide Post
I've just discovered a new pet peeve:

on-line dictionaries that, without telling you, include coinages (such as "aptronym") that aren't in any published dictionary -- because the author thinks it's a neat "word".

In other words, on-line dictionaries that without warning you, give you bogus words.

mad gggrrrrr mad
 
Posts: 2603 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Hi, Bob! I am a singer, and I know what you mean about the word "miracle". But there are some unusual pronunciations that are taught to us in voice training. It does make a difference if you are singing solo or with a large group too. Some words, if sung like you would say them, just don't come out right.
 
Posts: 27Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kalleh:
"If we can say mileage, acreage, yardage and footage, why can't we say inchage?"

That may just happen. Someone decided "signs" wasn't adequate and coined "signage" in 1976. (www.m-w.com and dictionary.oed.com) "Signage" seems to be a US coinage, I'm sad to say. All the quotes in the OED are from US sources.

Tinman
 
Posts: 2772 | Location: Shoreline, WA, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted Hide Post
Asa says, "A pet peeve of mine is 'nuculer' instead of 'nuclear'."

If I remember right, George Bush is a prime offender.

I've just learned that M-W's Collegiate Dictionary list "nyoo-kyu-ler" as a valid pronunciation.

Which leaves me questioning whether M-W Collegiate is a valid dictionary.
 
Posts: 2603 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I can only tell you, Shufitz, that I have found it wrong (or maybe just not as good as other sources) several times. I use the MW Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary at work.

However, on another subject here, I had recently posted on how the misuse of "fewer" and "less" annoys me. Well, our editor here has just put out a Style Manual which I think has an incorrect use of "less"; I would have used "fewer" in that instance. Do you agree?

Correct: fewer than 30 states responded to the survey
Correct: less than half of the delegates registered in a timely manner

Hint: there are a finite number of delegates
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Oh, oh, oh, I just heard one today on one of those sports' radio stations (I know; why do I listen to them?): "The athlete turned his life 360 degrees around". He'd be right back where he started! He turned his life 180 degrees around.

Another pet peeve is that very few people (though I am sure all you wordcrafters do! wink) use each and both correctly.
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
My dearest friend has lately caught me saying such wonders as: "Take a picture of she and I." Funny, when I write it or type it, I know it is wrong and can change it. But that is what comes out of my mouth and I can't take it back. I never realized how often I am wrong though, until he recently started pointing it out to me every time I do it! roll eyes
 
Posts: 1412 | Location: Buffalo, NY, United StatesReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Ohhhh, Morgan, that ("give it to she and I") is a pet peeve of mine, too!

Hey, Apostrophe guys, I now have a new pet peeve because of you, and I thank you for it. I now detest seeing all the unnecessary apostrophes! I cannot stand seeing ICU's or 3's and 4's. I think I will go to your FOTA forum and thank the crowd for teaching me--and giving me a wonderful new pet peeve to complain about! big grin
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
It is an unspoken concensus amongst apostrophe lovers that people who use the word "it's" as the possessive of "it" should be mildy chastised.

Stringing them up by their toes for 24 hours is the sort of punishment I would have in mind.

Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of C J Strolin
posted Hide Post
Kalleh, Kalleh, Kalleh...

Just when I was this close to entreating you to forsake your friends and family and fly away with me to my chalet in the Swiss Alps, you come down on the unfortunate side of the "3's" vs. "3s" debate thereby shattering my view of you as linguistic goddess and perfect woman. Ah, well... I suppose it was inevitable.

Without going into the whole rigamarole (another favorite word, def: confused and petty set of procedures) since I've danced that particular dance nearly to exhaustion elsewhere (the FOTA board for one) the bottom line is:

Whatever promotes clarity can and should be considered "correct."

With the apostrophe, "3's" looks like "threes" which is what it is. Without it, "3s" looks as though it might be pronounced as the two-syllable "three-ess" (a female three, maybe?) which it is not. Do you "dot your i's" or do you "dot your is"? The latter looks like a misprint meaning god knows what.

Now, "DVD's for sale" doesn't quite make it for me since "DVDs" is clear enough and I would only write something as loathsome as "Apple's for sale" if I were deliberately trying to get a rise out of R.E. which, appearances sometimes to the contrary, is not my idea of a good 'ol time.

So. On the assumption that no one is perfect (you have this apparent apostrophe issue, I have a tendancy to lie about possessing chalets in the Swiss Alps) I look forward to further posts on this, and other, topics on this board.
 
Posts: 1517 | Location: Illinois, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
What CJ? You were the one who called me the "nuthousewife"! Sheesh!

I have now learned to be a complete minimalist with apostrophes--and a bit arrogant about it as well! big grin My best authorities tell me that there are no apostrophes with numbers. Sorry, CJ--but we can meet anyway!

Now, for those of you who have been here awhile, you know that this has been a 180-degree turnabout for me (Thank God I didn't say 360-degree!). In a very early thread, I stated "apostrophe's are ...."!!!! Arnie promptly educated me, and I am now a new, apostrophe-free woman.
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of arnie
posted Hide Post
quote:
Arnie promptly educated me, and I am now a new, apostrophe-free woman.
Now I know why evangelists and missionaries do it!

wink razz big grin
 
Posts: 10930 | Location: LondonReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of C J Strolin
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kalleh:

I have now learned to be a _complete_ minimalist with apostrophes... ...and I am now a new, apostrophe-free woman.


There was once an ad seen primarily in packs of matches (and one has to wonder about how that advertising decision came about) for some sort of secretarial school that began "if y cn rd ths, y cn gt a gd jb." Kalleh, if you aspire to become a complete minimalist, can we assume that you'll be posting like this before long? (Brrrr!)

(Don't know if anyone ever did get a "gd jb" from that school but it seems like a number of its students graduated to the internet which brings up a pet peeve gone over at some length elsewhere.)

And "apostrophe-free"?? Why not swear off the letter "M"? Or, if you have to pick on a punctuation mark, wouldn't it be easier to avoid the semi-colon? Regarding the apostrophe with numbers, I've got no major heartburn with "3s" over "3's" since it largely comes down to preference IF, as I believe is the case, at least a few authoritative sources say that either may be used. But I assume you see why apostrophes are needed in such constructions as "dot your i's" and "p's and q's"?

And a final sidenote: When those "If y cn rd ths, y cn gt a gd jb." ads were made into signs appearing in subway cars, invariably some one would take a marker and add "Fk y, I gt frd nywy!"
 
Posts: 1517 | Location: Illinois, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Could we see Jay strollin' after he whipped out his marker? wink

LOL! that's was a good one, CJ!
 
Posts: 266 | Location: GreeceReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
CJ, as usual, you have me in stitches! big grin

Yes, Professor Arnie quite carefully and precisely explained the entire apostrophe lesson to me, p's and q's included. wink
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
So, Einstein is someone with just one stone? [Asa]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wasn't that Hitler? wink [arnie]

The word is monorchid, which museamuse would recognize instantly, would you not?
 
Posts: 1184Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I would indeed! And it's not someone holding one orchid! wink

In fact, (and Kalleh could probably confirm this) men being born with an undescended testicle is not that rare a condition and can be remedied with a simple operation when they are about two-three years old. So the monorchids of the world have hope yet!
 
Posts: 266 | Location: GreeceReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of shufitz
posted Hide Post
A little checking brought forth related words anorchid (noun) and anorchous (adjective), the an- prefix meaning "without". I'd think they would have have excellent figurative use, as in

"You'd have gotten that promotion," his wife screamed, "if you weren't so anorchous."
 
Posts: 2603 | Location: Chicago, IL USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Oh shufitz! That cracked me up! It also made me think that a thread about swear words might have potential here...
 
Posts: 266 | Location: GreeceReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I hate it when 2 words, to me, mean the exact same thing. I never know which to use. I already posted the irregardless vs. regardless fiasco. However, what about disorganized versus unorganized? Or--is there a subtle distinction there? My dictionary (MW 9th) doesn't seem to think so.
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
Of course, "regardless" and "iregardless" do not mean the same since the latter word does not exist! Were it to do so then they would be opposites!

One of the beaties of our wonderful language is that it has such a massive vocabulary and thus a huge choice of words to use. This does mean, of course, that there will be some which are very close in meaning to others - or which may even mean the same. But is this so bad? Do we always want to use exactly the same word every time? Do we always want to drink the same drink (even if it's Fullers 1845); eat the same food or visit the same holiday (or vacation) destination?

Revel in the wealth of simile that we have and take pity on those impoverished languages whose poverty of lexicon so disadvantages them!

Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I am not sure if you are teasing or not, Richard, but in case the answer is not--"irregardless" is in all my dictionaries and is defined as meaning "regardless".
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Richard, I have to agree with Kalleh on this one. You misspelled irregardless as iregardless, which is true, the latter does not exist. But that is not the word she said! My Webster's sitting here on my desk says irregardless means regardless!
 
Posts: 1412 | Location: Buffalo, NY, United StatesReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
The OED does not contain this word, with or without a double "r" and I am surprised indeed that Webster lists it without comment (unless the comment has been edited out of the posting!)

I do not have a copy of Webster (I do not care for the publication myself) but there are several references that I can cite:

According to the American Heritage Dictionary:

"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 according to Miriam Webster online:

"Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

And according to Michael Quinion:

"The word is thoroughly and consistently condemned in all American references I can find. But it's also surprisingly common. It's formed from regardless by adding the negative prefix ir-; as regardless is already negative, the word is considered a logical absurdity."

It is a rotten and pointless word which is rightly condemned by all careful users of English - and I should like to think that includes those who post here!

Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I do apologize, Richard, for not looking further. 25 lashes with the wet noodle for being a slacker!

I remembered seeing irregardless in my AHD at home, but I didn't remember the usage note. When I looked it up in my 9th Ed. MW (granted, I hate that dictionary!)--the only dictionary available in my office--the following is the the verbatim:
"adj[prob. blend of irrespective and regardless] nonstand (ca. 1912): REGARDLESS"

Obviously I missed the nonstand, and I do stand corrected. By the way, I am pleased as punch to see that it is not accepted because I despise "irregardless". Richard, did you read the earlier post about these 2 words? I am just surprised that you didn't comment then.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Wed Dec 18th, 2002 at 7:11.]

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Wed Dec 18th, 2002 at 20:03.]
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of C J Strolin
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kalleh:
I hate it when 2 words, to me, mean the exact same thing. ... However, what about _disorganized_ versus _unorganized_? Or--is there a subtle distinction there? My dictionary (MW 9th) doesn't seem to think so.


Irregardless of the controversy over "irregardless" (though, for the record, I completely agree with R.E.) I believe that there is a difference between "disorganized" and "unorganized." The second, to me anyway, represents a total lack of organization while the first suggest that someone at least tried to put things in order but failed. If papers are put into folders for no logical reason, they're unorganized. If they're put into the "P" file ("P" for papers) in alphabetical order according to the writers' shoe sizes, that would be disorganized.

Of course, once again I'm winging it without checking any reference materials (I'm the anti-Tinman!) but that's how I see the distinction.
 
Posts: 1517 | Location: Illinois, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
...for saying I found irregardless in my Webster's on my desk! I found it here. I would never use it! And looking again at the entry, it states:

ir-re-gard-less --adj. & adv. Nonstand. Regardless.

I find this word grates on my nerves every time one of my co-workers uses it. And she is the only person I have ever heard use this monstrosity!
 
Posts: 1412 | Location: Buffalo, NY, United StatesReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
I am glad we all agree on irregardless.

CJ, I tend to agree with you about unorganized and disorganized. It's just that I hear it used both ways. I believe the difference is subtle.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Thu Jun 26th, 2003 at 21:17.]
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
quote:
The OED does not contain this word, with or without a double "r" and I am surprised indeed that Webster lists it without comment (unless the comment has been edited out of the posting!)
I trust your assertion that "irregardless" does not appear in OED, and OED is my bible for words. However, I was just in a bookstore and looked in "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary" (1993), and guess what word I found? Yes! So, Morgan, we weren't tooooo far off!

BTW, I was in a medical library the other day and asked the librarian if they had an OED. She had never heard of it. Then I said an "Oxford English Dictionary". Still--this librarian looked stumped. eek mad frown
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Richard English
posted Hide Post
In fact, I had something of the sort in my own mind and actually started to compose a response. However, I desisted in the end because I couldn't justify to myself the difference between a state of organisational lack that had happened because nobody had tried to remedy it and one that was just extant - which is, I think, the inference you are trying to draw.

If true distinction there is, it is a nice one indeed.

Unlike, of course, the very real (and sadly often unappreciated) difference between "uninterested" and "disinterested".

Richard English
 
Posts: 8037 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UKReply With QuoteReport This Post
Junior Member
posted Hide Post
As I perused this thread today, taking particular interest in the earlier beer discussion, I noted that richard used the incorrect term for unfermented beer. "Must" refers to unfermented wine, the proper term for that peculiar barley malt and hop concoction that will in time become beer is "wort" pronounced "vert". And just for giggles here is another good term: "Rheinheitsgebot"- Purity law- that esteemed Bavarian law establishing the right and proper ingredients of Beer, that is: barley malt, hops and water.
 
Posts: 1 | Location: Bainbridge IslandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of BobHale
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by osbiefeel:
As I perused this thread today, taking particular interest in the earlier beer discussion, I noted that richard used the incorrect term for unfermented beer. "Must" refers to unfermented wine, the proper term for that peculiar barley malt and hop concoction that will in time become beer is "wort" pronounced "vert". And just for giggles here is another good term: "Rheinheitsgebot"- Purity law- that esteemed Bavarian law establishing the right and proper ingredients of Beer, that is: barley malt, hops and water.


Ah, one of our invisible members posts! smile

And what a start - a challenge to Richard's information on the subject closest to his heart (not to mention his kidneys). Welcome to the board - be careful though, most of us have found that it's habit forming. smile

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.
 
Posts: 7870 | Location: EnglandReply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Kalleh
posted Hide Post
Welcome, osbiefeel! big grin wink razz smile cool
So glad to have you!

P.S. Have you seen the Drink-related words thread?
 
Posts: 23317 | Location: Chicago, USAReply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

Wordcraft Home Page    Wordcraft Community Home Page    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Potpourri    Pet peeves

Copyright © 2002-12