Post here all you grammar nerds, pedants :): Page 3 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

Post here all you grammar nerds, pedants :)

Bold Tone

Quincy Abeyie wrote:
That we "conceded so many headed goals since Ospina came into the team" is not true, though. Irregardless of the circumstances. 🙂

[size=large][font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Rex Gon' Give It To Ya[/font][/size]
[size=large][font=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]
[/font][/size]

Mirth

I thought Irregardless is a word?

Rex

It is a word, but only mentally challenged people use it. 🙂

Biggus

Mirth wrote:
I thought Irregardless is a word?

Regardless or irrespective take your pick.

Rex

People have hated irregardless since the 1850s, so it's been around for a while...

Mirth

People hate your avatar and that hasn't stopped you

USArsenal

Irregardless is technically a word, but its a commonly improper way to say "regardless". I use it at home sometimes just to piss the wife off, she hates that word.. 😃

Its almost as bad as when people say supposebly..

Rex

It doesn't really matter that it is a word. People get judged on their language, and that is a fact. Some will say it is pedantic or whatever, but it is a fact nonetheless. Using 'irregardless', 'how come' instead of 'why', 'literally' when it is not literal at all, 'me' when it should be 'I', and a million other examples WILL have lots and lots of people see you as uneducated, and you will be treated as such. Now, if that matters to someone or not is of course entirely a choice each individual is free to make.

Anyway, hasn't this thread served its purpose now? Sneezey is at Roma and Ospina is here.

jones

Rex wrote:
It doesn't really matter that it is a word. People get judged on their language, and that is a fact. Some will say it is pedantic or whatever, but it is a fact nonetheless. Using 'irregardless', 'how come' instead of 'why', 'literally' when it is not literal at all, 'me' when it should be 'I', and a million other examples WILL have lots and lots of people see you as uneducated, and you will be treated as such. Now, if that matters to someone or not is of course entirely a choice each individual is free to make.

How come?

jones

USArsenal wrote:
Irregardless is technically a word, but its a commonly improper way to say "regardless". I use it at home sometimes just to piss the wife off, she hates that word.. 😃

Its almost as bad as when people say supposebly..

While people often use it incorrectly 'supposably' is an actual word with a different meaning to supposedly.

Klaus

jones wrote:
Rex wrote:
It doesn't really matter that it is a word. People get judged on their language, and that is a fact. Some will say it is pedantic or whatever, but it is a fact nonetheless. Using 'irregardless', 'how come' instead of 'why', 'literally' when it is not literal at all, 'me' when it should be 'I', and a million other examples WILL have lots and lots of people see you as uneducated, and you will be treated as such. Now, if that matters to someone or not is of course entirely a choice each individual is free to make.

How come?

I think irregardless of which you prefer, Rex would have found a way to put down your choice.

The thing about language is that it's organic. If people prefer the wrong spelling or even the wrong word over the correct one it's usually because modern syntax and phonetics lend themselves better to the alternative. It's a mistake thinking that language by itself desires conformity and strict rules. Grammar change. Spelling changes. Semantics change. There's a consistent lack of consistency throughout the history of linguistics.

Grammar fascism is a way for those who can't master the aesthetics of a language to assert authority over those who do. Referencing education, which historically has been a tool of oppression used to distinguish between upper class and low breed, just reinforces that point. Language gets treated as something that belongs to instututions and higher education instead of people. It gets standardised with the intent to eradicate local and personal differences, as well as the 'wrong' cultural influences (it's for the same reason heavy dialects get ridiculed; it wasn't that long ago you were required to learn how to speak properly in school if you wanted to come across as educated and worth taking seriously).

Rex

I disagree with most of that, Klaus, but this thread is certainly not the place. In fact, it is a subject more suitable for a conversation rather than posting. Let me just quickly point out that you have got it wrong regarding standards of language. I think a very quick Google search will lead you to a few relevant and interesting articles and papers though if you are interested. Fwiw I am very interested in, and like, dialects. I think any language would be a lot less interesting without them.

jones

Rex wrote:
I disagree with most of that, Klaus, but this thread is certainly not the place. In fact, it is a subject more suitable for a conversation rather than posting. Let me just quickly point out that you have got it wrong regarding standards of language. I think a very quick Google search will lead you to a few relevant and interesting articles and papers though if you are interested. Fwiw I am very interested in, and like, dialects. I think any language would be a lot less interesting without them.

I think Klaus' point was there is no right or wrong regarding the long term standards of languages, which is shown as an example by the u-turn in meaning of your favourite word 'literally'. Disagree that this is not the thread for this discussion btw, what place better to discuss spelling errors than a Szczesny thread 😆

MOD EDIT: Posts moved from the Szcz vs Ospina thread

QuincyAbeyie

Ffs, I used irregardless just because I was talking to Rex. 😆 Agree with everything Klaus says btw. I'll have to say that Rex is very selective as to what changes he accepts and not, considering that he doesn't talk like they did two hundred years ago.

Rex

If it were not for Standard English, we wouldn't be able to have posters from all around the world communicating here. Think about that for a second...

Please note that there is Standard British English, Standard American English, Standard Scottish English and so on. If it were not for these standards, then there is no way that Australia, New Zealand, USA, Great Britain and a whole host of other places would share what is mostly the same language, though with certain differences. We don't even have to go that far; even within a country as small as Sweden, we would most likely have a situation where people from the south would speak an entire different language to the people in the north if it were not for Standard Swedish. In a nutshell, THAT is the point of standardizing languages.

Klaus

Except this is not about making communication possible, it's about nitpicking like some asshole on the Internet and it's getting really tiresome. Everyone does it as soon as they get a chance, and there's usually a strong correlation between being anal over grammar and being a poor writer.

Rex wrote:
even within a country as small as Sweden, we would most likely have a situation where people from the south would speak an entire different language to the people in the north if it were not for Standard Swedish.

They do speak a different language in the north. They're called the Sami people and their ancestors have lived in this land since well before the last ice age. They're being treated horribly at the moment because they're not considered 'genuine' Swedes by descendants of the North Germanic tribes that showed up one day and asserted dominance. How's that for irony. The sense of entitlement that comes from belonging to a majority is, hands down, the single biggest failure of democracy.

Rex wrote:
I think a very quick Google search will lead you to a few relevant and interesting articles and papers though if you are interested.

I've studied linguistics, Rex. I'm not very interested in discussing the subject on the basis of what turns up in Google when you put in a couple of key search words. Anyone who doesn't think there's a strong imperialistic and assimilative element behind the standardisation of written and verbal communication are fooling themselves. It's what has been driving the evolution of language from the Barbarian Invasions and onwards to the colonisation era. If standardisation was a question of mere convenience rather than ideology we'd still be speaking old norse in Scandinavia, and Anglosaxon or Latin would be the standard in most of Europe.

Big Willie

There, their, they're Rex. Try not to be too upset that you've been Burnwintered by Klaus.

Rex

As far as the Sami are concerned, I hands down agree with you, Klaus. In Scandinavia, they have for generations been treated as badly as, for instance, Native Americans in the USA, and Aboriginals in Australia.

😆 Klaus is just being obtuse though. Bringing Sápmi in here is him deliberately ignoring what I wrote. I'll write it again; if not for Standard Swedish, people in the south of Sweden would speak an entirely different language than Swedes living in the north.

I have also never claimed that language does NOT aim to assimilate. Everyone who has studied linguistics knows it is true. That's why every country that gains independence standardizes its language; it makes people feel that they belong to the same group. You can look to the Balkan for instance; what used to be one language, and largely is to this day, has seen every country standardize its own language. Anyone who claims that is a coincidence is off their rocker. That is also why Franco outlawed Catalan in Catalonia btw, claiming it was 'just' a Castilliano dialect; Franco did NOT want the Catalans to feel anything other than Spanish. Even Franco couldn't claim Basque was a dialect though...

Oh, and standardization IS about communication to a large degree, and English would NEVER have been the Lingua Franca it is today without it.

Daz

This is what happens when we are quiet in the transfer market. I blame Wenger.

Burnwinter

Klaus wrote:
Anyone who doesn't think there's a strong imperialistic and assimilative element behind the standardisation of written and verbal communication are fooling themselves.

Language standardisation is inevitably a political project sponsored by sectional interests within the state, however its effects can be a bit more complicated than imperialism and assimilation—or at least I'd say centralist political programmes tend to have both good and bad outcomes.

That said, the best example I know of is modern Turkey, where an extremely authoritarian campaign of language standardisation took place after the fall of the Ottoman empire and the reestablishment of Turkey as a nation state based on "Turkishness" as opposed to its history as the centre of the Muslim caliphate. This was accompanied by genocide, mass forced migration and other terrible atrocities. But hey, they all write and spell the same way today.

« Previous Page Next Page »