Comments on: Random English major thought

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:25:22 +0000

Jimmy Carter also mispronounced nuclear, and he was a nuke boat driver in the Navy. It’s a Southern thing, I think.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:47:02 +0000

Now that we’ve covered word meaning and mathematics, I’ll add that public figures who mispronounce “nuclear” drive me up the wall. You’d think their handlers would have clued them in by now.

By the way, I don’t mean this as a slap at GWB. If I were an American, I’d probably have voted for him, in spite of his warts.

By: LynnB

LynnB — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:18:56 +0000

Omri, I knew you were going to show up in this thread. Just please don’t bring the OED into it. ;-)

By: Tatterdemalian

Tatterdemalian — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 19:06:00 +0000

Pretty simple, really. Multiplication is basically adding a number to itself a second number of times. Thus,

(4)+(4)+(4) = 4 x 3 = 12

It stands to reason that multiplying by a negative number means subtracting a number from itself (well, from zero for the first number, really) a second number of times.

0-(4)-(4)-(4) = 4 x -3 = -12

Or, adding a negative number to itself a number of times.

(-4)+(-4)+(-4) = -4 x 3 = -12

So what happens when you subtract a negative number from itself a second number of times?

0-(-4)-(-4)-(-4) = -4 x -3 = 12

Quite elementary.

By: Meryl Yourish

Meryl Yourish — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:30:02 +0000

Wait a minute. Isn’t -1 + -1 = -2?

It’s -1 +1 = 0, right?

I mean, yes, English major, but I do remember some math.

But -1 x -1 = 1, right?

I never really got why a negative times a negative equals a positive. Makes no real sense to me.

Please don’t try to explain. Those kind of explanations send me screaming from the room.

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:27:45 +0000

There are a fair few words where a negative reinforces a negative instead of cancelling out. It’s not quite so simple as (-1)+(-1) = 0 :)

By: Omri Ceren

Omri Ceren — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:20:29 +0000

Well obviously, as a factual matter you’re wrong about this. If a sound is used with sufficient frequency to refer to a more or less reasonably shared concept, it is in every sense a word.

If irregardless was to gain general acceptance, it would indeed be a word. That it has not is an empirical, not a theoretical question.

By: Philbrick

Philbrick — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:50:11 +0000

Unlike “curiouser,” “irregardless” negates itself. The word pretty much means “not regardless” or “not without regard to” something. The problem is that people use “irregardless” in the same way that they use “regardless,” which is, well, wrong. That’s why my mind screeches in pain when I hear it.
Other than that, I think you’re pretty much free to make up words in modern English as long as they follow some logical pattern. Samuel isn’t returning my phone calls, though, so I can’t be sure.

By: Meryl Yourish

Meryl Yourish — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:47:31 +0000

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

When I'm right, I'm right.

By: Michael Lonie

Michael Lonie — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 03:07:59 +0000

I once used the phrase “curiouser and curiouser” to an English major who then told me that the word did not exist. Merely being an English major does not confer standing to decide on the nonexistence of words. What do the intellectual heirs of Noah Webster or Dr. Johnson say about it?