irregardless in Oxford dictionary of US English

[Dingbat]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/irregardless
I'll treat it with irregard*, regardless**:-)

* I'd have more use for irregard being in the dictionary coz hauteur and disdain reek of snobbery.
Give My Irregards To Broadway By Clarence Petersen, Chicago Tribune
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-03-11/features/8701190636_1_irregardless-reader-irony

** Irregardless is still used primarily in speech. Its reputation has not risen over the years.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

[Peter T. Daniels]

And your point? Dictionaries register usage, not "correctness."

[Dingbat]

It's a shame that it's irregardless, not irregard, that's used enough to get into the dictionary. The reason I gave is that certain alternatives reek of snobbery. "Lack of regard" can be used but can you think of a one word alternative that doesn't have a supercilious connotation?

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <1ec76d2f-9a86-4266...@googlegroups.com>,

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 8:56:03 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 8:51:47 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> >
> > http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american

> > english/irregardless
> > > I'll treat it with irregard*, regardless**:-)
> > >
> > > * I'd have more use for irregard being in the dictionary coz hauteur and
> > > disdain reek of snobbery.
> > > Give My Irregards To Broadway By Clarence Petersen, Chicago Tribune

> > > http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-03-11/features/8701190636 1

> > > irregardless-reader-irony
> > >
> > > ** Irregardless is still used primarily in speech. Its reputation has not
> > > risen over the years.
> > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
> >
> > And your point? Dictionaries register usage, not "correctness."
>
> It's a shame that it's irregardless, not irregard, that's used enough to get
> into the dictionary. The reason I gave is that certain alternatives reek of
> snobbery. "Lack of regard" can be used but can you think of a one word
> alternative that doesn't have a supercilious connotation?

Your disregard disregards the availability of disregard.

[HVS]

On 01 Sep 2015, Dingbat wrote

> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/irregard

> less I'll treat it with irregard*, regardless**:-)
>
> * I'd have more use for irregard being in the dictionary coz hauteur and
> disdain reek of snobbery. Give My Irregards To Broadway By Clarence
> Petersen, Chicago Tribune
> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-03-11/features/8701190636_1_irreg
> ardless-reader-irony
>
> ** Irregardless is still used primarily in speech. Its reputation has
> not risen over the years.
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

I see that Oxford dictionaries date it to "Mid 19th century", while MW has
"First Known Use: circa 1912".

They can't both be right.

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[bert]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 13:56:03 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Dictionaries register usage, not "correctness."

Not true. A recent edition of Chambers listed:
"Outdacious: an illiterate perversion of audacious".
--

[Peter T. Daniels]

That sure looks like registering the form to me!

Though perhaps it ought to have simply been registered as a nonstandard
spelling variant. Or have Chambers anointed themselves arbiters of perversity?

There have been "usage notes" in desk dictionaries for more than a century.

[Dingbat]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:22:54 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> In article <1ec76d2f-9a86-4266...@googlegroups.com>,

Disregard would be useful for the purpose if it had not come to be commonly understood as "ignore" more than "lack regard".

That is, "I'll disregard it" would be understood by most as "I'll ignore it" and even "I'll treat it with disregard" would be understood by many "I'll pretend I never saw it" rather than "I'll view it with disfavor" which is what I meant.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 10:52:10 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:22:54 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> > In article <1ec76d2f-9a86-4266...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 8:56:03 AM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 8:51:47 AM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

> > > > http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american
> > > > english/irregardless
> > > > > I'll treat it with irregard*, regardless**:-)
> > > > > * I'd have more use for irregard being in the dictionary coz hauteur and
> > > > > disdain reek of snobbery.
> > > > > Give My Irregards To Broadway By Clarence Petersen, Chicago Tribune
> > > > > http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-03-11/features/8701190636 1
> > > > > irregardless-reader-iron

> > > > > ** Irregardless is still used primarily in speech. Its reputation has not
> > > > > risen over the years.
> > > > > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
> > > > And your point? Dictionaries register usage, not "correctness."
> > > It's a shame that it's irregardless, not irregard, that's used enough to get
> > > into the dictionary. The reason I gave is that certain alternatives reek of
> > > snobbery. "Lack of regard" can be used but can you think of a one word
> > > alternative that doesn't have a supercilious connotation?
> > Your disregard disregards the availability of disregard.
>
> Disregard would be useful for the purpose if it had not come to be commonly understood as "ignore" more than "lack regard".
>
> That is, "I'll disregard it" would be understood by most as "I'll ignore it" and even "I'll treat it with disregard" would be understood by many "I'll pretend I never saw it" rather than "I'll view it with disfavor" which is what I meant.

Then say "disfavor." "Disregard" doesn't mean that.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:30:05 +0100, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 01 Sep 2015, Dingbat wrote
>
>> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/irregard
>> less I'll treat it with irregard*, regardless**:-)
>>
>> * I'd have more use for irregard being in the dictionary coz hauteur and
>> disdain reek of snobbery. Give My Irregards To Broadway By Clarence
>> Petersen, Chicago Tribune
>> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-03-11/features/8701190636_1_irreg
>> ardless-reader-irony
>>
>> ** Irregardless is still used primarily in speech. Its reputation has
>> not risen over the years.
>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
>
>I see that Oxford dictionaries date it to "Mid 19th century", while MW has
>"First Known Use: circa 1912".
>
>They can't both be right.

The OED's earliest quotation for "irregardless":

1912 in H. Wentworth Amer. Dial. Dict.

Perhaps the entry in that dictonary mentions a "Mid 19th century"
origin. It might quote a source that is no longer available.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Jerry Friedman]

Here's "irregardless" from /The Knickerbocker/ in 1863:

https://books.google.com/books?id=URdFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA282

--
Jerry Friedman

[bert]

On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 14:56:03 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:36:02 AM UTC-4, bert wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 1 September 2015 13:56:03 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > Dictionaries register usage, not "correctness."
> >
> > Not true. A recent edition of Chambers listed:
> > "Outdacious: an illiterate perversion of audacious".
>
> That sure looks like registering the form to me!

Of course it does, and is; we can agree that dictionaries
register usage. But you said that dictionaries didn't
register correctness, and there you were wrong. It's
clear - to me, at any rate - that when the dictionary says
that it's 'illiterate', it's judging it to be incorrect.
--

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

In article
<24237a1c-ce1c-4b6b...@googlegroups.com>
Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/irregardless

>
> I'll treat it with irregard*, regardless**:-)
>
> * I'd have more use for irregard being in the dictionary
> coz hauteur and disdain reek of snobbery.
>
> Give My Irregards To Broadway By Clarence Petersen,
> Chicago Tribune
>
> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-03-11/features/8701190636_1_irregardless-reader-irony
>
> ** Irregardless is still used primarily in speech. Its
> reputation has not risen over the years.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

Pretty much anything goes in English, that is Munglish.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

[Peter T. Daniels]

Unfortunately you missed the rest of my message.

I don't write like a journalist, to be shortened from the bottom up.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <053b3249-d7dd-4bf7...@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

You said

> > > Dictionaries register usage, not "correctness."

and

> There have been "usage notes" in desk dictionaries for more than a century.

If the latter includes descriptions like "an illiterate perversion",
then it contradicts the former. Calling it a "usage note" doesn't
mean that it is not an assessment of correctness. Clearly some
dictionaries register both.

-- Richard

[Joe Fineman]

In my childhood (1940s) it was widely associated with the Amos 'n' Andy
radio show. My impression is that since then it has been something of a
shibboleth of semiliteracy, like "enthuse".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Choice of attention is to the inner life what choice of :||
||: action is to the outer. :||

[Robert Bannister]

What is your complaint? They are listing it. I'm glad I've never heard it.

--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[Robert Bannister]

On 2/09/2015 5:59 am, Joe Fineman wrote:

> In my childhood (1940s) it was widely associated with the Amos 'n' Andy
> radio show. My impression is that since then it has been something of a
> shibboleth of semiliteracy, like "enthuse".
>

Dictionary.com
1820-30, Americanism; back formation from enthusiasm

The verb enthuse is a 19th-century back formation from the noun
enthusiasm. Originally an Americanism, enthuse is now standard and well
established in the speech and all but the most formal writing of
educated persons, in both Britain and the United States. It is used as a
transitive verb meaning “to cause to become enthusiastic” ( The
liveliness of the dance enthused the audience) and as an intransitive
verb meaning “to show enthusiasm” ( She enthused warmly over his
performance). Despite its long history and frequent occurrence, however,
enthuse is still strongly disapproved of by many.
===============================================

Your comment is the first I have ever met disapproving of this useful
word. It has a long enough history to have made itself acceptable, surely?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Now look at the passage I wrote _above_ the second one quoted. (The first
one quoted was from an earlier message.)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

The OED gives the etymology as: "An ignorant back-formation < enthusiasm
n."

I take it that "ignorant" refers to the back-formation rather than to
the usage of the word. It says that the origin is "U.S. (colloq. or
humorous.)". There is no hint that the word is deprecated or a sign of
illiteracy.

My impression is that in BrE "enthuse" is used by more-educated people
rather being slang or other low register.

[Joe Fineman]

It is useful to me too, but only when a touch of semiliteracy seems
called for. For me, the locus classicus was in a cartoon by Herblock,
must have been about 1955. J. Robert Oppenheimer's security clearance
had been revoked, and one of the complaints against him that had gotten
into the record was that he had been insufficiently "enthusiastic" about
the H-bomb program. The cartoon showed an Atomic Energy Commission
office with a THINK sign in the wastebasket and an ENTHUSE sign on the
wall.

Of course, that sort of thing is a matter of taste -- what the Germans
call Sprachgefühl -- and its vagaries are hard for dictionaries to
capture. I can well imagine that in the last 60 years the edge has worn
off that wisecrack.

(Are there still THINK signs? Used to be an IBM thing, widely giggled
at.)

--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Insurance, like its moral opposite gambling, stinks of the :||
||: continual temptation and presumption of fraud. :||

[Richard Yates]

I think there is a case that can be made that "illiterate" does not
necessarily make a general judgment of "incorrect." It could also mean
that it is precisely the correct word to use when conversing with
illiterate people.