# Would you vote for someone irregardless of there grammer? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 24, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916 "2010-09-24T18:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/61 "2010-09-27T19:29:43Z")
> [@legalsnugs](#): > > I agree that the language evolves, and maybe in 50 years everyone will say “This is her,” _shudder_ but I also think you’d have to kill all the English teachers and burn all the English textbooks first. That’s the point. Pretty much everybody is saying it now. Therefore, by your own standards, it’s standard English. No? Also, with respect, high school English teachers and textbooks are hardly an authority on the language. > [@](#): > > Use whatever ignorant grammar you want. All I’m saying is that if you use non-standard English, people who know better will think you’re stupid. Why would I care? ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/62 "2010-09-27T19:31:29Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#): > > You would not say “HER went to the store”. Subject being “She” (discriptive) as opposed to “Her” (posessive) > > High School English. Perhaps you mean “descriptive” and “possessive”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/63 "2010-09-27T19:32:37Z")
If someone thinks I’m stupid for saying “It’s me”, so be it. I’m not really worried about the .1% of people who say “It is I”. Besides, if Churchill can do it, so can I. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/64 "2010-09-27T19:35:11Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > Is using an (arguably) non-existent word a grammatical error, or a semantic one? It’s a lexical issue. Whether or not you consider it acceptable, it’s _ **NOT A GRAMMAR issue** _. Neither is spelling. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/65 "2010-09-27T19:38:49Z")
Even though she doesn’t speak English all that good, I think myself and her would get along. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/66 "2010-09-27T20:22:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Lazy language is a very poor descriptor of what you’re talking about. Languages change. Many of the “correct” usages today would be considered “lazy” in the past. I hope you’re not one of those guys who bristles at split infinitives or ending a sentence with a preposition. The split infinitive has nothing to do with laziness. The rule that an infinitive couldn’t be split came from Latin, and like most English grammar rules adopted from Latin, is pointless. You can’t split an infinitive in Latin because _it’s physically impossible_; the infinitive form is a single word. You _can_ split an infinitive in English, and in 1998 the editors of the OED finally agreed that anyone who said you weren’t supposed to was irretarded. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/67 "2010-09-27T20:29:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@John\_Mace](#): > > > > Lazy language is a very poor descriptor of what you’re talking about. Languages change. Many of the “correct” usages today would be considered “lazy” in the past. I hope you’re not one of those guys who bristles at split infinitives or ending a sentence with a preposition. > > The split infinitive has nothing to do with laziness. The rule that an infinitive couldn’t be split came from Latin, and like most English grammar rules adopted from Latin, is pointless. > > You can’t split an infinitive in Latin because _it’s physically impossible_; the infinitive form is a single word. You _can_ split an infinitive in English, and in 1998 the editors of the OED finally agreed that anyone who said you weren’t supposed to was irretarded. Yes, I know that. I was responding to a post where the poster was talking about correcting other people’s “bad” grammar. None of his examples had anything to do with laziness. They’re just different expressions for the same thing. If any have fewer words than the “correct” version, they could just as easily be called “economical” and the other version “flowery”. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/68 "2010-09-27T21:24:16Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > One might argue that the purpose of communication is to, well, communicate. And as long as your manner of speech does not significantly impair that communication, then there is nothing “wrong” about it. > [@Bearflag70](#): > > Even though she doesn’t speak English all that good, I think myself and her would get along. So, those making that argument would find nothing “wrong” with my sentence? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/69 "2010-09-27T21:30:45Z")
“Myself and her” is not a very common locution, but it’s perfectly understandable. ---
**Author:** ![Mozart1220](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f1d935/32.png) [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/70 "2010-09-27T21:38:12Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > > [@Mozart1220](#): > > > > You would not say “HER went to the store”. Subject being “She” (discriptive) as opposed to “Her” (posessive) > > > > High School English. > > Perhaps you mean “descriptive” and “possessive”. Thank you. My typing skills are suspect. It also seems that the older I get, the worse my spelling becomes. Fortunately, I am not expecting anyone to choose me for high office. But the point is correct in any event yes? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/71 "2010-09-27T22:14:49Z")
Having different versions for the Nominative and Objective pronouns is really an anachronism in English. We generally don’t decline nouns that way anymore, since sentence structure almost always tells you which is the object and which is the subject. “You” led the way, after taking over for “ye”. Whom is next. It’s on its way out, ad we might as well say good riddance. It has gotten to the point that, to me, using “whom” in everyday speech actually sounds wrong (or at least pretentious). ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/72 "2010-09-27T22:25:00Z")
Related to the OP, on one of my local community’s message boards someone running for City Couuncil decided to take the opportunity to introduce themself and some of their positions. It was full of grammar and spelling errors. I, in what I thought was a freindly way, recommended that the person be more careful when writing something for public consumption, to make sure to get it right. There were several replies to my post telling the person to ignore me, that I should pay attention to the issues and that stuff wasn’t important. I wept. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/73 "2010-09-27T22:29:39Z")
Ah, the “singular they”, and its derivatives, the singular “their” and “themselves” ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/74 "2010-09-27T23:07:51Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > It was full of grammar and spelling errors. I, in what I thought was a freindly way, recommended that the person be more careful when writing something for public consumption, to make sure to get it right. \*\*Gaudere \*\*strikes again. I swear it’s like when a driver sees some obstacle at the roadside and can’t help driving straight in to it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/75 "2010-09-27T23:27:00Z")
In to? ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/76 "2010-09-27T23:29:57Z")
Not that it matters, but I very much like “themself”. I am always happy to see others using it. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/77 "2010-09-27T23:30:23Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > > [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > > > It was full of grammar and spelling errors. I, in what I thought was a freindly way, recommended that the person be more careful when writing something for public consumption, to make sure to get it right. > > \*\*Gaudere \*\*strikes again. > I swear it’s like when a driver sees some obstacle at the roadside and can’t help driving straight in to it. Except I am not running for any office. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 27, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/78 "2010-09-27T23:39:51Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > > [@Ximenean](#): > > > > \*\*Gaudere \*\*strikes again. > > I swear it’s like when a driver sees some obstacle at the roadside and can’t help driving straight in to it. > > Except I am not running for any office. But you were “writing something for public consumption”. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/79 "2010-09-28T01:14:18Z")
> [@Beware\_of\_Doug](#): > > As a liberal who occasionally visits less-than-elite web discussions like those at Democratic Underground, I’m all but convinced that my fellow liberals - even the less educated ones, whose English may be far from perfect - make fewer and less serious errors with written communication than conservatives. In particular, they put out fewer unsupported assumptions; they misspell fewer common words; and they don’t engage in capitalization for emphasis. My hypothesis is that they care more about being understood, however angry they are. Flame to taste. As an independent who visits both liberal and conservative sites, I’m all but convinced that conservatives are right when they claim liberals are arrogant, condescending, and patronizing twits. It’s like the nucular thing that Bush got bashed with all the time or the corpse thing Obama got hit with. With all the real issues to evaluate our politicians by, we’re arguing about a single word they used? Really? This is what you guys think is oh so important? Or do you just like feeling superior to others because of how they speak? Language is meant to convey ideas. Everyone who listened to that ad knew what she meant with the word irregardless. Granted, it’s kinda hard to tell what she meant with all the other words, but political ads are intentional vague like that. Still, idea communicated: 1, sticks up the ass: 0. Note: This wasn’t meant specifically about Beware of Doug, he just happened to give me the starting line for my whining. It’s meant more broadly to anyone who thinks things like this make a damned bit of difference outside of an English class. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 28, 2010, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916/80 "2010-09-28T04:11:03Z")
These things make a damned bit of difference because people think they do. If your Senator takes to wearing boardshorts and a wife beater to committee meetings, are you going to start bitching when people say he ought to dress a bit better? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-vote-for-someone-irregardless-of-there-grammer/554916.md?page=5)