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: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to