I would have used irregardlessly instead!<G> JH
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Crooks Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:27 AM To: ProFox Email List Subject: RE: [OT] Defending Marriage On Wednesday, September 05, 2007 10:24 AM Nicholas Geti wrote: >Irregardless of what your position is on this subject, the article itself is pathetic yellow journalism. >It would never get past the editor in even a small town newspaper. I lost count of the number of >assumptions implied. Irregardless: an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from 1912, probably a blend of irrespective and regardless. Perhaps inspired by the double negative used as an emphatic. Online Etymology Dictionary, (c) 2001 Douglas Harper David L. Crooks [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]@shelbynet.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
