Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
Member |
Seen in the paper ... Wife: ... so she had the nerve to talk about me, irrecgardless of the fact that I had her back last time! Husband: Regardless. Wife: What? Husband: There's no such word as irregardless, my grammar-challenged wife. Wife: What difference does that make? Everyone uses it. Husband: Everyone who uses bad English. Wife: Irregardless of your English acuity, I want a divorce! Husband: Sure. Right after your trial for murdering the English language. | ||
|
Member |
We have discussed this word before at length. Funny that the man is the grammatically correct one here because my impression is that women have better grammar, generally, than men. Of course, this is a generalization, and I realize that some men have better grammar than women (probably every man on this site). | |||
|
Member |
quote: Ah, but to my suprise, ir- is not necessarily a negative. For example, irradiate, from in- "in" + radiare "to shine" irrigate, from in- "in" + rigare "to water, to moisten" | |||
|
<Asa Lovejoy> |
ir- is not necessarily a negative ---------------------------- You mean, as in irritate? Now, how about IRRIDENTA? One could apply that term to the present state of affairs in Ir-aq. | ||
Powered by Social Strata |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |