# For bitching about language pedantry, other posters' language, and language in general **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 16, 2024, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135 "2024-06-16T22:40:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 24
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2024, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/461 "2024-07-05T21:55:17Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > We could argue forever about how common or uncommon… Well, no, because I wasn’t making an argument about how common either definition is. In fact, my argument was explicitly assuming that “‘Guys’ is gendered,” is the _less_ common usage. The point being, inherent in the concept of descriptivism is the idea that less common usages are completely valid. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I was objecting to the accusation that I somehow “didn’t understand” what prescriptivism was when I said that disparaging the use of “guys” in the gender-neutral sense was linguistic prescriptivism. Yes, that was what I was rebutting in the other two-thirds of the post: > [@Miller](#): > > “Manners” are a set of explicitly artificial rules designed to ease social interaction. They do not purport to describe a natural phenomenon. Saying that “manners” are “prescriptivist” is tautological. It’s like call chess “prescriptivist.” True, but so what? > > The whole point of descriptivism is to get away from treating linguistics like manners. Language isn’t determined by artificially imposed rules, but by emergent rules arrived at by subconscious consensus. But there’s nothing in descriptivism that opposes teaching people how those rules work (grammar), or which sets of rules are best suited to which social contexts (manners). There’s no ironic contradiction in applying a descriptivist approach to emergent rule sets, and a prescriptivist approach to artificial rule sets. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2024, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/462 "2024-07-05T22:15:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > That’s not a valid analogy because “gals” has never been gender neutral anywhere on planet Earth, whereas whether you approve or not, “guys” in the plural form has been, and for a long time. I said you got halfway through understanding the point and then quit. Here’s what it would’ve looked like to understand the point behind my satirical suggestion: “Gals” has never been gender neutral, but “guys” has. **Why**? Why didn’t “gals” end up as the gender-neutral word? And has there been, in the history of mankind, any other word that referred both to males specifically and to all people? And did the race of man look at the word and decide, each individual, whether man or woman, fireman or garbageman or policeman or chairman of a major company–that it was to his benefit to use a less gendered word? Descriptivism (or, as I prefer, “linguistics”) acknowledges that words change in meaning, and that words can have connotations and denotations, and that it’s worth exploring and unpacking all aspects of a word. You are correct that prescriptivism has more in common with manners. One commonality is that some jackasses insist that it’s “wrong” to wear white after Labor Day, as if that’s some objective fact, or that money trees at weddings are objectively signs of low class. Those manner mavens are just like the fussbudgets who insist that “I could care less” is objectively incorrect. But other manner experts look instead at how we can have principles for treating one another well, and also at how our behavior may communicate certain things about our personalities, whether accurate or inaccurate, and we should be aware of what messages others will take from our behavior. They freely recognize both that there’s nothing objectively wrong with wearing white after Labor Day, and also that some folks will think less of you if you do; so if you care about those opinions, take them into consideration when getting dressed in October. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2024, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/463 "2024-07-05T22:22:51Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Language isn’t determined by artificially imposed rules, but by emergent rules arrived at by subconscious consensus. But there’s nothing in descriptivism that opposes teaching people how those rules work (grammar), or which sets of rules are best suited to which social contexts (manners). There’s no ironic contradiction in applying a descriptivist approach to emergent rule sets, and a prescriptivist approach to artificial rule sets. Well, yes, I agree, but the point is that linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism are not distinct ideologies. They’re not black and white, but a very broad continuum. Which of those emergent rules do you accept and document? Which do you classify as informal colloquialisms, and which do you accept as standard English? Which do you reject as now archaic? Which do you flag as offensive and unacceptable in polite company? The term “prescriptivist” as a disparagement simply refers to those on a particularly extreme side of that continuum. Technically anyone who teaches grammar is in some sense a prescriptivist, because they’re teaching rules. The common derogatory sense of the word is used for those who insist on enforcing rules that are silly. So I stand by my comment, supported by the cite I gave, that the scope of prescriptivism goes far beyond just grammar, and that anyone disparaging language that’s long been in common use, and seeking to avoid it, no matter how noble their goals of inclusivity, good manners, or avoiding offense, is being prescriptive. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2024, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/464 "2024-07-05T22:36:45Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > They’re not black and white, but a very broad continuum No they are not, any more than anthropology and etiquette are on a continuum. They run parallel, if anything. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2024, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/465 "2024-07-05T22:46:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No they are not, any more than anthropology and etiquette are on a continuum. They run parallel, if anything.   Well, no, they’re not two completely different fields. But you’re right that they are completely different philosophies and approaches to language. What I meant and should have said is that **people** – the speakers, users, students, and the documentors and arbiters of language – are on a continuum, with some leaning more to the descriptivist side and some more to the other. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2024, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/466 "2024-07-05T23:35:51Z")
Jeebus christ kids, get a og-damned room!! This “You misunderstood me! No, _you_ misunderstood _me_!” was old 46 posts ago. Time for a new topic: I propose > Should “motherfucker” be preceded only by “ignorant” or is “stupid” sometimes a better antecedent? Discuss. Actually to be on-topic for the thread we need to discuss whether and when stating an opinion on this point is valid criticism and when it’s errant (or arrant) pedantry. Or tedious wankery which almost as bad. 😁 ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2024, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/467 "2024-07-05T23:42:32Z")
But Dad, if we can’t bicker in the Pit, where **can** we bicker? 🧒 ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2024, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/468 "2024-07-05T23:53:28Z")
Oh, please do bicker forth! And with not only my blessings but my active cheerleading. Just mix up what you’re bickering _about_ a liitle. Nobody loves a one-trick pony. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/469 "2024-07-06T01:11:55Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > You know of no women who have an issue with “guys”. Great. I know many women who are fine with it, and many women who find it slightly dismissive of women. > [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > Nah. The only people I see complaining about it in here are men. Who are ignoring the women saying “actually we use it and it’s fine.” Funny how that is. An old anecdote, but - I attended an all male university, partnered for almost all classes with an all female college, 1978-1981. I was in attendance at more than one planning meeting of organizations where we men were chastised (at varying levels of vehemence) for using “guys” to mean “students from both schools”. I’ve never quite managed to stop using it, and possibly it is a low hill that even most of the people who are offended feel it isn’t worth expending energy on, but I do try and make note if there is a mix of genders and substitute “folks” or “people” when appropriate (which it usually is). More recently, my work organization prior to retirement was ~50% women and there was occasional pushback on people of all genders who used “guys” to refer to the team. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/470 "2024-07-06T12:23:19Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > virtually everyone regarded “guys” as gender-neutral By my reading, more than 5% did not. That’s one in every 20 people. That’s a large enough minority to stop me using it. Also just linking to a chart is a bit poor form - 2300 people where? Which culture, which age range? Well, since you didn’t link, here it is: > **[When is "guys" gender neutral? I did a survey!](https://jvns.ca/blog/2013/12/27/guys-guys-guys/)** > > When is "guys" gender neutral? I did a survey! And these are some telling words from the article: > This really isn’t meant to be a scientific study or anything > There’s tons of selection bias, because the survey was only distributed through Twitter retweets. > The framing of the survey is pretty biased – I said things like “someone is trying to convince me that ‘guys’ is a gender neutral term” in my tweets about the survey. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/471 "2024-07-06T12:23:41Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > What I meant and should have said is that **people** – the speakers, users, students, and the documentors and arbiters of language – are on a continuum, with some leaning more to the descriptivist side and some more to the other. That’s closer, but still not right. There are three approaches to language, two of which I happily practice: 1. **Linguistics.** This is where you look at how language works in real life, everywhere from the wilds of a youth hostel to the formulae of Javascript programming. The idea of “incorrect” language here exists only when you come up with linguistic formulations that no human uses, and even there, “incorrect” is an inaccurate word. It’s like calling a chupacabra “incorrect” from a biological perspective–who _does_ that? 2. **Effective communication**. This is where you look at, and teach, and learn, the rules for communicating effectively _within a given context_. I can teach that split infinitives are perfectly common and comprehensible in English, and also that some fussy people will object to them, so it’s worth avoiding them in certain contexts. I can teach that if your pronouns lack antecedents, your audience might struggle to understand you. I can teach that capitalizing the first words in sentences makes it easier to read your writing. I can even teach that “I could care less” is language that some people object to, so consider how its use affects your reputation among certain audiences. Here’s where we talk about whether “guys” is completely gender-neutral, or whether it retains some connotation of male-as-the-default that makes it problematic to use when describing a mixed-gender group. 3. **Superstitious Prescriptivism** This is the second approach masquerading as the first. This is where people claim that certain uses are _wrong_, and that the people using them are morons. It’s where people confuse social norms with objective facts. I use both the first and the second approach extensively, and value them both. There’s no continuum here. I reject the third approach. Again, there’s no continuum. > [@LSLGuy](#): > > Jeebus christ kids, get a og-damned room!! This _is_ our room, motherfucker! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/472 "2024-07-06T12:35:52Z")
From a linguistics perspective, it’s interesting to compare the etymology of “man” to “guy.” Man: > **[man | Etymology of man by etymonline](https://www.etymonline.com/word/man)** > > "a featherless plantigrade biped mammal of the genus Homo" \[Century Dictionary\], Old… See origin and meaning of man. Short version: “man” probably comes from “Mannus,” the mythical progenitor of humanity that Tacitus wrote about. Most interestingly, “man” as “human” _predates_ “man” as “adult male human.” It adopted the “adult male” meaning a couple centuries after the “human” definition–but then that became by far the more common definition, to the extent that the word’s gendered connotations became overwhelming. Today, if someone refers to “man” or “men” as a word for everyone–male and female–they catch a lot of side-eye. Guy: > **[guy | Search Online Etymology Dictionary](https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=guy)** > > The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible... Short version: this is the coolest thing I’ve learned in awhile. “Guy” meaning “male human” comes from Guy Freaking Fawkes! It goes like this: 1. Guy Fawkes tries to blow up Parliament in a villainous, clumsy, ill-fated, but _completely fucking awesome_ assassination attempt. 2. Brits, in their glorious weirdness, make a whole holiday to celebrate this villain. 3. They burn effigies of Guy Fawkes. 4. They start calling those effigies “guys.” 5. Then they start calling badly-dressed dudes “guys.” 6. Then they start calling all dudes “guys.” 7. Then they start calling everyone “guys.” So: “guy” definitely was gendered long before it was non-gendered. And it also has an amazing etymology. That doesn’t necessarily affect how we use it today, but I think those gendered connotations adhere to the word, much like they adhere to the word “man.” My tongue-in-cheek suggestion of “gals” as an alternative is to point out how we shrink from taking a female-gendered word and turning it into a non-gendered word. I suspect that it’s because we still think of males as the default, so it’s easier for us to claim that male words are nongendered than female words. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/473 "2024-07-06T12:53:31Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > And these are some telling words from the article: > > > This really isn’t meant to be a scientific study or anything You mean like when I said > interesting though distinctly non-scientific survey You seem to be under the misapprehension that I posted that graph to bolster my argument. But as you point out, some of it actually weakens my argument, because at face value it at least narrows down the scope of the contexts in which “guys” would be considered gender neutral. The truth is that I posted the graph for the exact reasons I stated – because I thought it was interesting, and because I thought it illuminated the discussion and helped to clarify some of the issues. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s closer, but still not right. No, it’s right. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > **Effective communication**. This is where you look at, and teach, and learn, the rules for communicating effectively _within a given context_. However you slice that tomato, you are still **teaching grammar** , just as teachers have been doing since we’ve had schools. In the past, with its greater formalities, there tended to be a much greater emphasis on Standard English, and along with that, various bits of silliness like the stricture to never end a sentence with a preposition. You’re much more liberal than that and more accepting of linguistic diversity. **That’s the continuum**. Your position on it has shifted from that of the fearful schoolmarm of yesteryear. And I’m fine with that, as long as you’re educating the kids, which I’m sure you’re doing well. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > **Superstitious Prescriptivism** This is the second approach masquerading as the first. This is where people claim that certain uses are _wrong_, and that the people using them are morons. It’s where people confuse social norms with objective facts. My objection to this framing of my argument is that it’s extremely misleading, to say the least. In previous posts you’ve taken a few of my casual deprecations and by repeating them over and over again tried to create the impression that I hold the majority of English speakers in contempt and refuse to acknowledge the natural evolution of language. This is not even remotely true. My hypothesis is that **some** (by no means all) idiosyncratic usage results from some combination of mishearing, slurring of words, dropping of syllables, or some other phonetic cause. Sometimes it results from conflating words, whereby confusing “regardless” with “irrespective” gives us “irregardless” (if “regardless” means “without regard”, what does “irregardless” mean? I don’t care if it’s been in use for a long time, what the hell does it mean that’s different from “regardless”?) In writing, it often results from incorrect homonyms (“there”, “they’re”, “their”) or just poor encoding of perceived phonetics (“could of”, “would of”). The point is, these are **mistakes**. And while in general I think it’s rude to correct anyone’s speech or writing, I think it’s also a disservice to the language when some linguists, apparently fascinated by how these mistakes come about, set out to defend them. They will sometimes champion linguistic blunders as admirable examples of language evolution in action, when in fact it’s just someone who mangled a common expression because they didn’t hear it correctly and never thought about the fact that the grammar or semantics made no sense. Yet there are many examples of where some linguists – Pinker and McWhorter are repeat offenders – eagerly offer _post hoc_ rationalizations for these usages, many of which are manifestly ludicrous. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/474 "2024-07-06T13:03:22Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > My hypothesis is that **some** (by no means all) idiosyncratic usage results from some combination of mishearing, slurring of words, dropping of syllables, or some other phonetic cause. Sometimes it results from conflating words, whereby confusing “regardless” with “irrespective” gives us “irregardless” (if “regardless” means “without regard”, what does “irregardless” mean? I don’t care if it’s been in use for a long time, what the hell does it mean that’s different from “regardless”?) In writing, it often results from incorrect homonyms (“there”, “they’re”, “their”) or just poor encoding of perceived phonetics (“could of”, “would of”). > > The point is, these are **mistakes**. How are “slurring of words” and “dropping of syllables” mistakes? You use contractions that were almost never used in 19th-century writing. When you write “it’s” instead of “it is,” were you mistaken? Sure: “could of” is usually an orthographic error. But that’s very different. > [@wolfpup](#): > > However you slice that tomato, you are still **teaching grammar** , just as teachers have been doing since we’ve had schools. In the past, with its greater formalities, there tended to be a much greater emphasis on Standard English, and along with that, various bits of silliness like the stricture to never end a sentence with a preposition. You’re much more liberal than that and more accepting of linguistic diversity. **That’s the continuum**. Your position on it has shifted from that of the fearful schoolmarm of yesteryear. Again, this is incorrect. The “fearful schoolmarm of yesteryear” presumably adopted your brand of superstitious prescriptivism. I reject that brand and am not on a continuum with it. Those who claim that “irregardless” is incorrect are simply and objectively wrong, from a linguistics perspective. If they say that it’s not a great word to use in a formal paper–well, I’d say that, too, but only because it’d hinder communication, because people get fussy about it. The word isn’t, in any meaningful sense, “incorrect.” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/475 "2024-07-06T13:13:31Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You mean like when I said > > > interesting though distinctly non-scientific survey Yes, like that. > [@wolfpup](#): > > You seem to be under the misapprehension that I posted that graph to bolster my argument. Whyever did I think that? > [@wolfpup](#): > > The conclusion is that it’s undeniably gender-neutral in greetings and similar forms of address Oh… And you’re still glossing over the fact that you just posted the graph, not the article. ---
**Author:** ![zweisamkeit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zweisamkeit/32/4360_2.png) [@zweisamkeit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zweisamkeit)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/476 "2024-07-06T13:27:54Z")
> [@Eyebrows\_0f\_Doom](#): > > Nah. The only people I see complaining about it in here are men. Who are ignoring the women saying “actually we use it and it’s fine.” Funny how that is. I’m a woman and I said something different than what you say women have said. You might not know that I’m a woman (Lord knows I haven’t posted much even though I’ve been here since 2002), but that doesn’t mean the the assumption should be “poster is male unless specified”. ETA: removed superfluous quote link ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/477 "2024-07-06T13:32:02Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > How are “slurring of words” and “dropping of syllables” mistakes? They’re not. The consequent transcription into written form, however, frequently is. And that’s because the writer was unfamiliar with the original, or just never gave it any thought. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Again, this is incorrect. The “fearful schoolmarm of yesteryear” presumably adopted your brand of superstitious prescriptivism. I reject that brand and am not on a continuum with it. Oh, come on! The extent to which one adheres to standard grammatical strictures or accepts deviations from them is most definitely a continuum! Even “Standard English” is itself not completely well defined and rife with controversies. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Those who claim that “irregardless” is incorrect are simply and objectively wrong, from a linguistics perspective. If they say that it’s not a great word to use in a formal paper–well, I’d say that, too, but only because it’d hinder communication, because people get fussy about it. The word isn’t, in any meaningful sense, “incorrect.” Sure, that’s pretty much where it sits. But my point was that it very likely originated from a conflation of “irrespective” and “regardless”. A mistake. I admit that my perspective is partly informed by the fact that I’m a technologist. I read academic journals. I do technical writing. Precision in language matters to me. `.AND.` is a logical function. `.NOT..AND.` is a logical function. But what the fuck is `.NOT..NOT..AND`.? Why, it’s just `.AND.`, irregardless! And I sure don’t have no issues with that! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2024, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135/478 "2024-07-06T14:12:26Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Oh, come on! The extent to which one adheres to standard grammatical strictures or accepts deviations from them is most definitely a continuum! “Argument’s an intellectual process. Contradiction’s just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.” I’ve made my point. Your continued denial of it, based on irrelevancies and tangents, isn’t something I can affect. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I admit that my perspective is partly informed by the fact that I’m a technologist. You’ve said this before, and it shows. You’re applying the stringencies and requirements of one discipline to another discipline in a way that comes across as superstitious. What makes for good computer coding and what makes for effective human language are not the same. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-bitching-about-language-pedantry-other-posters-language-and-language-in-general/1003135.md?page=23)