I'm trying to write an article about questionable words that don't actually exist but are regularly used by supposed professionals - like "irregardless," which is really the best example I can come up with at present
( Read more... )
The trouble with "words that don't actually exist but are regularly used" is that "words...that are regularly used" do exist. They may be irregular or widely disapproved of, and may have been coined out of ignorance or error, but they do (now and forevermore) exist.
Almost any of the abominations railed against by usage commentators can be found, on investigation, to have a long history of use by generally well-regarded speakers and writers.
I knew you'd call me on that. I was about to edit it to "questionable words." ;-)
Being more of a usage commentator than, say, a dictionary employee, I tend to react prescriptively to neologisms - at least when they aren't well-constructed words, or when they demonstrate a lack of self-awareness.
Someone elsewhere suggested "guesstimate" but I really don't feel the same way about "guesstimate" as I do about "irregardless." Most people (I hope) recognize "guesstimate" as a fairly informal portmanteau, and it has an actual definition, whereas "irregardless" is just hopelessly illogical.
What about "alot" also? It isn't "allot". It's "a lot". However people seem to be convinced it's a word all by itself. (As a result, they will probably eventually be correct.)
Comments 7
Almost any of the abominations railed against by usage commentators can be found, on investigation, to have a long history of use by generally well-regarded speakers and writers.
Reply
Being more of a usage commentator than, say, a dictionary employee, I tend to react prescriptively to neologisms - at least when they aren't well-constructed words, or when they demonstrate a lack of self-awareness.
Someone elsewhere suggested "guesstimate" but I really don't feel the same way about "guesstimate" as I do about "irregardless." Most people (I hope) recognize "guesstimate" as a fairly informal portmanteau, and it has an actual definition, whereas "irregardless" is just hopelessly illogical.
Reply
:P
You could maybe try the reversed meaning of "enervate." Blatantly incorrect, but used frequently enough to gain currency.
Reply
Reply
Also, tricep. The singular is triceps.
Is "gruntled" a word now? It didn't start as a word, but the opposite of disgruntled had to be something...
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment