Pet Peeve: "irregardless" isn't a word!

[senseandsensibility]

Why doesn't someone with a million dollar salary like Tweety, a supposed "professional writer" at that, know that? I don't get it.

He just said that Iraq wants us out of their country "irregardless" of the situation on the ground. Sheesh.

[Oceansaway]

1. turn the asshole off....n/t

[Aviation Pro]

2. Regardless....

...it is pretty much irrespective to point this out.

[hedgehog]

3. Boy, if that isn't an inflammable OP, I don't know what is!

[exothermic]

5. Heh. good one.

:D
(But how many will get it?)?
:D

[Occam Bandage]

4. Sure it is. Prescriptivists suck.

[Occam Bandage]

9. Here, as a bit of analogy: Have you ever said "up above?" Let's look at the etymology:

That's from O.E. "abufan," from "on" + bufan meaning "over," which is comprised of be "by" + ufan "over/high," with "ufan" deriving from something like up-on. "Above" literally means, "On by on up." "Up above" is "up on by on up." People like to emphasize by semantic reduplication. It's pretty common.

[fishwax]

63. "Prescriptivists suck"

:rofl:

I think I need that on a t-shirt.

[Redstone]

6. It's even worse than "comprised of." Gawd, the idiocy is limitless.

Redstone

[Indenturedebtor]

7. Comprised of is improper? Please explain n/t

[Redstone]

13. The several comprise the whole. The whole is COMPOSED OF the several.

Redstone

[zanne]

50. Agreed. nt

[TahitiNut]

15. Use "composed of."

:shrug:

John, Paul, George, and Ringo comprised The Beatles.

[RebelOne]

47. Or use "consists of."

[comtec]

46. irregardless of how it's used :)

if people say it... it's a word.
irregardless is constructed using all the rules of English, and thus it is a word.
Lets break it down shall we?
ir * re* guard * less
two prefixes and a suffix.
IR, dispite X
RE, to refer, to RE peat, it's a hard one not to use its self in the definition
gard - a city in Italy the Romans liked.
less, hmmm... well less of, a small amount, etc

regard - to have respect for
regardless - to have no, or reduced respect for
Irregardless - despite having respect for .....

I would also point out that irregardless is in my spell checker in firefox, so :Þ

Here's the wiki on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

Irregardless of if YOU like it or not, it IS a word, because it IS IN USE, that's what a word is. Something that conveys an idea or concept.

[Occam Bandage]

11. You...you do accept the legitimacy of the passive tense in most terms, right?

The passive tense is a rather modern development in the English language, dating only a few centuries back. It's strange to see the seventeenth-century shock-and-horror over its usage in modern days, even if only limited to a handful of words.

Also, "hopefully" can be used as a sentence-level adjective, and "orientate" is a word.

[Redstone]

14. Huh?

Redstone

[Occam Bandage]

18. If you can say,

"These twenty soldiers comprise this unit," you can say, "This unit is comprised of these twenty soldiers." That's the way the passive tense works in the English language. People who disagree are stick-up-the-ass prescriptivists who claim without justification that the linguistic fashions of generations prior are in some way superior or desirable.

[Redstone]

19. No, the unit is COMPOSED of the twenty soldiers. And you're welcome to your opinion,

and to repeat it verbatim and ad nauseum (yes, I know that phrase is not REAL Latin) as many times as you wish to.

But your opinion doesn't change the truth of comprise vs. compose. Sorry about that.

Redstone

[Occam Bandage]

20. ...yes. That is one legitimate way of saying it. "Comprised" is another. There is no legitimate

reason why a handful of words should be arbitrarily blocked from access to the passive tense. That bogus "rule" is dropping out of style guidelines. It'll be a laughable relic of prescriptivism gone awry in another generation. There is no "truth" here, redstone. There's only language.

[Redstone]

28. And there's a tiring repetition of the word "prescriptivism." Anyone uses such a word

over and over like you do, that gives me a real good indication that they're someone who has an obsession, and therefore with whom it is a waste of time to attempt to have an actual discussion therewith.

And, by the way, "blocking" words would be "proscriptivism," not "prescriptivism."

"Proscribe" means to eliminate. "Prescribe" means to, well, prescribe, or recommend.

You can't even get THAT difference, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. 'Bye.

Redstone

[Occam Bandage]

30. Dear Redstone. You have just badly embarrassed yourself.

Hi. My name is Occam Bandage. I am an alum of the University of Chicago with a degree in linguistics. I understand the processes of linguistic innovation and development. I believe, as do most people in my field, that prescriptivism is useful only for people writing formal style guides, and that descriptivism is a far more useful way of looking at language. I believe that "truth" in language is best kept to the fields of pragmatics and computational linguistics. I believe that you're simply repeating what some crusty old manual/teacher (that was inaccurate when written/taught) as told you, with only occasional irritated regard to the actual language unfolding around you. I believe that your smug declaration that I meant "proscriptivism" is laughable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription

[Igel]

40. And yet the passive is a voice, not a tense.

Can't help it. Jargon is usually prescriptivist, so that we're mostly on the same page.

(Although I still don't think I get derivation by phase, but I haven't really tried hard, either.)

[zanne]

51. And now, a question about the use of "troops"...

I always considered a "troop" to be composed of more than one soldier. Lately, I've been hearing things like "Two troops died today in Iraq"... Does that mean that one soldier is a "troop"?

[RebelOne]

48. From the grammar manual

"Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay -- Practical Advice For The Grammatically Challenged": comprised of (never) To the careful writer, the expression "comprised of" is gibberish. Comprise means "include." Thus, "comprised of" makes no more sense than "included of."

[zanne]

52. Where did you get that book and who is the author?

Please?

[Political Heretic]

81. Crap. I'm guilty of that. :(

[jeff30997]

8. For almost a decade,a Twit..

with far more than a million dollar salary was living in the White House so...(When I say more than a million dollar salary I hope you know what I mean?)

[senseandsensibility]

17. No.

And I've had my coffee today, too.:shrug:

[jeff30997]

21. Ok then...I will type slooowly...

All the fucking money he made which was not his official salary but the massive income due to that fucking war!(Ahhh!I feel better now...)Good Night, and Good Luck...

[TahitiNut]

10. More importantly ...

:dunce:

[Popol Vuh]

12. Don't mean to be argumentative

but irregardless is used often enough and with everybody knowing what it relates. That makes it a word. Even spell checker has it listed. :P

[jeff30997]

22. And yet...

LOL and ROFL are not listed?Whyyyy?

[senseandsensibility]

23. That's not argmentative

Jeez, I lived through GDP! Is it a word? I say no, irregardless of whether it's listed in spell checker. :rofl:

[jeff30997]

26. GDP?

You mean the Guardians of Deep-drilling Penises ?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

34. It's a double negative. ARGGGHH!

People who should know better use "irregardless".

:grr: :banghead:

[Ilsa]

29. Yeah, but it has the same meaning as "regardless". How silly is that? nt

[Igel]

43. Think about it and your argument unravels.

Or is that "ravels".

Gee. "Ravel" verbs are always a pain. Sort of like "cleave".

ravel
–verb (used with object) 1. to disentangle or unravel the threads or fibers of (a woven or knitted fabric, rope, etc.).
2. to tangle or entangle.
3. to involve; confuse; perplex.
4. to make clear; unravel (often fol. by out).

cleave 1. to adhere closely; stick; cling (usually fol. by to).
cleave 1. to split or divide by or as if by a cutting blow, esp. along a natural line of division, as the grain of wood.


There are a few words like that. Nobody said language is logical. In fact, it often isn't. Hence the frequent use of "double negatives" in so many languages, and even in so many dialects of English.

[Popol Vuh]

88. It is silly.....but

there are other silly examples in the English language. :evilgrin:




Example: Bass =











And Bass =

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Well whoop-dee-shit.

Big frickin' deal.

[TexasObserver]

24. thank you!!

[Schema Thing]

25. It's a word.

And it did what words are supposed to do: communicate accurately.

[Occam Bandage]

27. It is a unit of language, comprised of morphemes, carrying meaning and possessing phonetical value.

It is therefore a word.

[Schema Thing]

33. yes. I just didn't have those words ;)

[CTyankee]

38. However, in places such as New Haven, where I live, you would be

immediately looked upon as an ignorant person if you used the term "irregardless."

My father, a Texan without a college degree, told me in no uncertain terms, that "irregardless" was NOT a word. He said "You can say 'regardless" or 'irrespective" but NOT 'irregardless."

nuff said.

[Igel]

44. That's a social fact.

A social fact involving language.

People have often looked down at others because of speech differences--some are associated with poor upbringing, low class status, lack of education. Why, African-American English Vernacular used to be considered illogical and incapable of expressing complicated thoughts, and considered to be lacking any discourse structure. One more faux fact for considering blacks less than fully human, like whites.

One has to take into account people who make social judgements about others based on speech and dialectal differences. One doesn't have to believe that the social judgements are proper, or those making them are reasonable. One just has to take them into account.

[Occam Bandage]

45. *shrug.* If you want to claim social dialect, sure. Nobody can argue with,

"The word "irregardless" is used in a highly informal register," or "highly informal registers are often erroneously seen as marks of low education."

[CTyankee]

55. OK, I'll check out what some of my Yalie friends have to say about such usage,

You know, those with "marks of low education." :rofl:

Oh, and as far as I'm concerned, all language is essentially and ultimately what I understand to be "social dialect." "Standard" Italian is based on Florentine dialect, for instance.

[Occam Bandage]

57. Well, for one, you could tell them that you could use some help with reading.

Look at that again. Look at who is being seen as uneducated, and at who is saying "irregardless."

[CTyankee]

76. You are absolutely right. I had misread your post originally (I thought it sounded strange).

Note to self, as longtime ESOL tutor: Stress to students the value of "careful reading."

[salguine]

31. That one's bugged me for along time. You know what else? I hate

when people pluralize things with apostrophes.

[senseandsensibility]

37. I've been seeing more of that lately, too.

I've even seen it in print in our local newspaper. It's an oldie but a goodie, and it seems to be becoming more and more common.

[EOTE]

61. Damn you grammar nazi's! NT

[MadrasT]

90. That one...

...makes me absolutely NUTS.

(I originally wrote "NUT'S" in a lame attempt to be amusing, but couldn't stand to leave it that way.)

When I was a rebellious teenager and other kids were stealing signs... I was running around painting out the extra apostrophes.

(OK, I only did it once. But still.)

[chemp]

32. I use it constantly!

Primarily, because it pisses so many people off.

(ir)Regardless, I am not a national network journalist.

[senseandsensibility]

36. Irritating people is always a good reason to do anything

so I'm with you there. But, as you say, you're not a national journalist. I have never corrected another DUer's grammar or spelling, but I can't stand it when people with very highly paid, powerful positions make basic mistakes in their supposed fields of expertise. So continue using the term, especially if it gets the reaction you're going for!

[NC_Nurse]

35. It's a great restaurant though...in Raleigh, NC!

[ColbertWatcher]

42. Pictures please. n/t

[NC_Nurse]

49. Sorry, I don't have any...

[Lance_Boyle]

82. pics at site

http://www.irregardless.com/

So yes, irregardless is a word. It is a proper noun describing this restaurant. Other uses should still be regarded as improper. ;-)

[ColbertWatcher]

39. Only elitists would use words correctably. n/t

[papapi]

41. I find it difficult to understand why one word uttered by a blockhead . . .

gets so much attention. It's irritating in the extreme.

[Freddie Stubbs]

53. It's a perfectly cromulent word

[dysfunctional press]

54. then i guess that random house and webster's oughta take it out of their dictionaries...

seeing as how you've decided that it shouldn't be there, and all.
:eyes:

[sourmilk]

56. How does anyone with such a username justify such an OP?

Tweety is OBVIOUSLY an asshole and is OBVIOUSLY highly paid to be one, as are Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and others of the same ilk.

WTF is so hard to "get?"

The fact that he's an (and please don't get pissy over this - you know it's true) USAmerican gives him license to abuse pretty much any word in the English language he wishes.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
irregardless


Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
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.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Yeah. That bugs me alot.

I wish they could repeal the word "alot" to prevent it from being misused in the above way.

It is the kind of semantic nonsense, up with which, I will not put.

[LanternWaste]

59. 'Elements of Style' should be a textbook

'Elements of Style' should be a textbook that every student is mandated to carry with them until it's known by heart.

The sloppy use of diction and grammar-- indicative of a lazy (but ever-so-trendy!) mind, is almost as bad as our collective predilection for philosophies only deep enough so as to fit on a bumper-sticker.

[Occam Bandage]

60. Wouldn't make a difference.

"The sloppy use of diction and grammar" has been going on for millennia. Education does not stop or slow it. Were it not that way, you and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be able to understand each other just fine.

[LanternWaste]

62. Would it please the court if I added a qualifier?

"The sloppy use of diction and grammar" has been going on for millennia"

So has murder... :shrug: And...?


Would it please the court if I added a qualifier? "The sloppy use of diction and grammar in 'formal' speaking..."

(However-- I do recognize the difference between sloppy grammar and a mere colloquialism. I also recognize the difference between someone venting in an OP and someone simply trying to make self-validating points for themselves too).


Sheesh.

[Lifetimedem]

73. Indeed

Grammatical error has always been, but when it is taught or accepted by those that teach or parents (that know better) it becomes a societal issue.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

77. It was mandatory at SJSU.

A great tool.

[fishwax]

64. um, of course it's a word

Whether it's standard or whether it's appropriate for certain situations are different questions, but irregardless is most certainly a word. :shrug:

Personally, I don't have a problem with people using "irregardless," though I warn my students that some people might use it as an excuse to look down on them. The same is true of using the sentence adjective "hopefully" or of ending a sentence with a preposition, both of which are perfectly acceptable.

[Lifetimedem]

66. You are a TEACHER?

Not of English I hope.. The word consists of a double negative . A double negative makes it a positive..

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
ir·re·gard·less Audio Help Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb Nonstandard.
regardless.


—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

[fishwax]

69. yes, of English

Of course it's a double negative. That doesn't mean it's not a word. :shrug:

[Lifetimedem]

71. anything can be a "word"

That does not mean it is grammatically correct in usage,

I am sick to death of people that say "me and Jim went there " or" I don't have no candy "

I think our English teachers need to go back to school so they can at least teach grammar and proper usage of words.

We have become verbally" illiterate " in this country.

[fishwax]

74. yes, that's pretty much what I said

I said that it is a word, but whether it's standard or appropriate is a different question.

Fun fact: "ravel" and "unravel" can mean the exact same thing, in spite of the negative prefix on the latter. Add the negative prefix "de" to the verb "bone" and you get "debone"--but both words mean the same thing. So too with "regardless" and "irregardless." In this sense, "irregardless" is an illogical word,* but not one likely to be genuinely misunderstood. It has, from use generally as a humorous affectation in the early 20th century, made its way into the general lexicon, and I think in a hundred years (perhaps a little longer) it will draw no more objection than the other two examples do now.

Perhaps you think English teachers should make preventing that a high priority. I don't. However, as I said in my earlier post, I do warn my students about using it, lest others judge them wanting.

I don't think our English teachers need to go back to school, but if they do, I'd prefer that they stop teaching junior high schoolers the bogus and illogical rule about ending a sentence with a preposition so that I wouldn't have to read papers in which my college students undertake all manner of linguistic gymnastics to avoid putting a "to" or an "on" or an "in" at the end of a sentence.

*In another sense, though, irregardless is not an illogical word--this is when we consider that prefixes (even negative ones such as il-, in-, and ir-) have, over the historical development of the English language, served not only as a negative, but also as an intensifier--"invaluable," for example. (Some speculate that "unravel" is an example of "un-" as an intensifier, but it is more likely that it was originally a negation, and that the meaning of "ravel" evolved--after the appearance of "unravel"--to include a meaning identical to "unravel.") At any rate, the use of such prefixes as an intensifier began to fade a few centuries ago; in that way, "irregardless" is a bit of a throwback :)

[Political Heretic]

83. Owned.

God I love smarts. :)

[Lifetimedem]

92. Unraveling

*In another sense, though, irregardless is not an illogical word--this is when we consider that prefixes (even negative ones such as il-, in-, and ir-) have, over the historical development of the English language, served not only as a negative, but also as an intensifier--"invaluable," for example. (Some speculate that "unravel" is an example of "un-" as an intensifier, but it is more likely that it was originally a negation, and that the meaning of "ravel" evolved--after the appearance of "unravel"--to include a meaning identical to "unravel.")

Of course it is an illogical word.. If we say regardless then saying irregardless has the exact opposite meaning (that nasty double negative thing again)

As for unravel , Ravel has one meaning that is consistent with the word ravel, however ravel also has clear meaning that might require one to unravel, there is no similar usage for regardless.

Ravel
v.tr.
To separate the fibers or threads of (cloth, for example); unravel.
To clarify by separating the aspects of.

To tangle or complicate.

I think the priority of all English teachers or professors is to communicate the correct usage and form of the English language .
One of the few cultural items that tie Americans together is a shared language.
One of the great social equalizers is vocabulary and sentence structure. If we really believe and want every American kid to have an opportunity to be president or the CEO of a corporation, the first thing they need to know is how to present themselves in all social and business situations .

A hopeful young attorney ( educator or businessman ) interviewing will never get that second level interview if he says " I ain't going to work in NY irregardlesss of where the office is at."

That is just the way it is. Part of the great social and cultural divide is language, and people are paying you to get them ready to go out into the world, not to be an apologist for lousy grammar

Sorry

[fishwax]

94. yeah, I already said that about unraveling

It's kind of weird how you keep repeating the things I already said as if you're telling me something I didn't already know. :shrug:


Of course it is an illogical word.. If we say regardless then saying irregardless has the exact opposite meaning (that nasty double negative thing again)

Of course, I already said that it was illogical in the sense that it is a double negative. But it's also true that those prefixes that we think of as negations are not always and exclusively negations. Historically speaking, such prefixes have also been used as intensifiers. (Incidentally, my example of that in my last post was not a good one; inflammable would probably be a better one.) Anyway, in a certain sense, irregardless is a throwback to that--an appeal to the logic of repetition for emphasis rather than the logic of tallying negations. (Of course, I'm well aware that this isn't the predominant logic of our language, just as I'm aware that other languages don't follow our logic when it comes to the double negative.)


As for unravel , Ravel has one meaning that is consistent with the word ravel, however ravel also has clear meaning that might require one to unravel, there is no similar usage for regardless.

The meaning you mention for ravel does not require that one unravel, of course; it only requires that one ... ravel. But one can also unravel if one wishes. :)

But anyway: yes, you're right. Like I said before: unravel was originally a negation (of the definition of ravel that you highlighted), and then the definition of "ravel" evolved to include the same meaning as unravel. This new meaning of ravel (i.e. "unravel") is now the primary meaning of ravel.

I never suggested that the development of irregardless/regardless was similar to the development of ravel/unravel. I suggested that they were similar in that they are both logical glitches. This remains true, unless one holds that it is logical for a word and its negation to mean the same thing, or that it is logical for a single word to mean both "what it means" and "the opposite of what it means." I don't find that logical. :shrug:



I think the priority of all English teachers or professors is to communicate the correct usage and form of the English language .

Certainly correct usage and form is important. Where it falls on the list of priorities depends greatly on the purpose of a given course, the grade level, etc. In an eight grade composition class, for instance, it's of paramount importance. In a senior lit class, less so, though it still has its place. There are other priorities as well, and even within the category of usage there ought to be different priorities.

This is why, in my former career as an editor for language arts products geared towards early learners and elementary kids, I was much less concerned with the exceptions to the rules that structure our language, the nuances that give that structure shape and depth, and the debates that rework that shape over time than I am now that I'm working with college students; college students, after all should (if they've learned the kind of critical thinking skills one hopes a college education would afford) be able to hear both that (a) many of the rules of the language are not as cut and dried or as universally agreed-upon as students might have been taught while learning the language, and (b) the fact that there is debate among experts about a given usage issue doesn't mean that you can get away with such usage with impunity.


One of the few cultural items that tie Americans together is a shared language.

One of the things that makes English such a rich and interesting language is its adaptability to differences of both region (irregardless, if I'm not mistaken, was a regionalism originally and remains more prominent in some places than others) and time.


One of the great social equalizers is vocabulary and sentence structure. If we really believe and want every American kid to have an opportunity to be president or the CEO of a corporation, the first thing they need to know is how to present themselves in all social and business situations .

A hopeful young attorney ( educator or businessman ) interviewing will never get that second level interview if he says " I ain't going to work in NY irregardlesss of where the office is at."

The "ain't" would hurt him much more than the "irregardless." (His refusal to work where the office wouldn't help him much either.) That's because practically everyone recognize "ain't" as non-standard. The same is not true of irregardless, since many people aren't aware of the potential problem of its usage (even educated users say it, as a dictionary usage note I posted earlier mentioned) and since some dismiss such objections.

But that aside, it's clear that saying "regardless" carries no risk of tweaking a sensitive grammar nerve, while "irregardless" might, depending on who you're talking to. For that reason, as I've said a number of times before, I warn my students about using it.


That is just the way it is. Part of the great social and cultural divide is language, and people are paying you to get them ready to go out into the world, not to be an apologist for lousy grammar

People are also not paying me to play grammar cop for all the worked-up pedants who can't handle the fact that languages change over time, etc. It's certainly true that getting them ready to go out into the world, to communicate more effectively in various situations, etc., is part of what they are paying me for. Fortunately, these are things I do well.

As for the "apologist for lousy grammar" quip--well, that's not what I do. But I do like to illustrate debates about language, because it is through these debates that language continues to breathe. It's one of the things that I like about language in general--teasing out the logics of various approaches, etc.--and when through such discussions some of my own love for and interest in language might rub off on someone else, that makes me quite happy indeed.

Sorry

No problem. I always enjoy a good grammar discussion, even if it is with someone who apparently thinks I'm what's wrong with American education ;)

And, let me also add (a bit belatedly), welcome to DU :toast:

[devilgrrl]

75. This is from a dictionary on my computer...

irregardless |ˌiriˈgärdlis|
adjective & adverb informal regardless.

ORIGIN early 20th cent.: probably a blend of irrespective and regardless.

USAGE Irregardless, with its illogical negative prefix, is widely heard, perhaps arising under the influence of such perfectly correct forms as: irrespective. Irregardless is avoided by careful users of English. Use regardless to mean 'without regard or consideration for' or 'nevertheless': | I go walking every day regardless of season or weather.

[fishwax]

86. I didn't say the word was standard

Here's a note from a descriptive (rather than prescriptive) dictionary:

—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

[Lifetimedem]

65. Thank you

That happens to be MY pet peeve too.

I suppose eventually it will appear in a dictionary because it is such a common error... but I would love to see how they define it!

[Snarkturian Clone]

67. So is "conversate" but I hear it 20 times a day and from my boss! NT

[Flying Dream Blues]

78. That is NOT a word. Please tell me that is not in the dictionary! nt

[Snarkturian Clone]

91. It's AAVE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American_Vernacular_English

[a la izquierda]

68. "supposubly" he's a writer...

i cringe when I hear supposubly (i don't even know how to spell it).

[fishwax]

70. I cringe at that one too

primarily because I once worked with a person who said it quite often (and with a peculiar emphasis on the second syllable, for some reason).

[Lifetimedem]

72. How about this common error..

"I felt BADLY"

Badly is an adverb...so in usage it would mean his hand did not feel an object correctly

Actually one feels bad.. (meaning his emotions or physical health were affected )

[Obamanaut]

79. And there is no such thing as 'workahol', but we put the suffix -ic

with it. I can't find any 'chocohol' in the candy aisle at my favorite grocery store.

[senseandsensibility]

80. LOL

Workic and chocolateic, or chocolatic, don't have the same ring.

[Political Heretic]

85. I'm about to go get my workohol on :(

2-10pm

[Nevernose]

84. "Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

--Ralph Wiggum

[a la izquierda]

87. Sleep, that's where I'm a viking!

Oh I love Ralph.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. Well Your Pet Peeve Is Dumb... Wrong Too...

Of course it's a word and is an acceptable word at that. It may be non-standard, but that doesn't mean it is banned from use. It is often used to stress a point and it's perfectly acceptable to do so. Get out much?

[pork medley]

93. Pet Peeve: uptight bores! (n/t)