Bev Broadhurst wrote: > A second rate dictionary for a 10th rate company. The oxford Dictionary is > light years ahead of Websters. Any dictionary that legitimizes ridiculous > words like "irregardless" does not deserve the title.
[what follows is completely mild OT rant :-] wow, touchy subject :-) "Usage Note: Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so." I'm sure not everyone would agree with me, but I think a word is legitimate if its generally understood, cause its all about the communication. if some one says "I wanna get me a new X, irregardless of how much I gots to pay", I know perfectly well what they mean. how many people can read this http://www.asksnoop.com/shizzolator.php?url=http://calgary.linux.ca/ Dave [again sorry for the OT]
