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. | < `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature