![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Saw a thing on FB and decided not to engage because it wasn't from anyone I knew and no one was begging for my input. Instead I'll inflict the information on my readers here--who also didn't ask for it, heh.
The FB post was about a news story yesterday that "Merriam-Webster has declared 'irregardless' a word!!" The news story was full of pearl-clutching and oaths sworn to continue to teach children not to use that word, no matter what MW says, and the commenters on the FB post were shaking their heads over standards, etc. etc.
Once upon a time I worked at Merriam-Webster, so I know a thing or two about it. What its dictionaries aim to do is **record the language as it exists in print**. MW dictionaries--and all modern dictionaries I know of --are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, they're not trying to act as style manuals. (There is no shortage of style and grammar manuals, if what you want are rules on how to speak or write the language.)
At Merriam-Webster, lexicographers note how words are used in print--they literally spend time doing a thing called "reading and marking," where they read through magazines, books, and newspapers (or they did, back when I worked there)--and if a word reaches a threshold presence, it goes in the dictionary. "Irregardless" has been in Merriam-Webster for at least 20 years, because it was there when I worked there.
MW does have ways of warning dictionary users about words, though. The first are labels like "archaic," "slang," or "offensive." There are also usage notes and usage paragraphs, which will warn you about words. In my 2003 physical copy of the MW Collegiate Dictionary, the note for "irregardless" says,
I don't think you can have any doubts about the word's standing if you read that. The dictionary up and tells you not to use it. The news story was obviously an attempt to provide a new, inconsequential thing to spend some outrage on, but honestly, there's nothing to see here, people. Move along.
The FB post was about a news story yesterday that "Merriam-Webster has declared 'irregardless' a word!!" The news story was full of pearl-clutching and oaths sworn to continue to teach children not to use that word, no matter what MW says, and the commenters on the FB post were shaking their heads over standards, etc. etc.
Once upon a time I worked at Merriam-Webster, so I know a thing or two about it. What its dictionaries aim to do is **record the language as it exists in print**. MW dictionaries--and all modern dictionaries I know of --are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, they're not trying to act as style manuals. (There is no shortage of style and grammar manuals, if what you want are rules on how to speak or write the language.)
At Merriam-Webster, lexicographers note how words are used in print--they literally spend time doing a thing called "reading and marking," where they read through magazines, books, and newspapers (or they did, back when I worked there)--and if a word reaches a threshold presence, it goes in the dictionary. "Irregardless" has been in Merriam-Webster for at least 20 years, because it was there when I worked there.
MW does have ways of warning dictionary users about words, though. The first are labels like "archaic," "slang," or "offensive." There are also usage notes and usage paragraphs, which will warn you about words. In my 2003 physical copy of the MW Collegiate Dictionary, the note for "irregardless" says,
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.
I don't think you can have any doubts about the word's standing if you read that. The dictionary up and tells you not to use it. The news story was obviously an attempt to provide a new, inconsequential thing to spend some outrage on, but honestly, there's nothing to see here, people. Move along.
no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 07:27 pm (UTC)I didn't know that! That's cool.
no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 08:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 08:03 pm (UTC)I remember that!
photo proof
Date: 2020-07-06 08:08 pm (UTC)Re: photo proof
Date: 2020-07-06 09:25 pm (UTC)Re: photo proof
Date: 2020-07-06 09:30 pm (UTC)Re: photo proof
Date: 2020-07-06 10:48 pm (UTC)Re: photo proof
Date: 2020-07-07 01:47 am (UTC)Re: photo proof
Date: 2020-07-07 01:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 08:19 pm (UTC)Actually I think possibly you mentioned this before, when I wrote a review about a book that is set at a dictionary office? But somehow it had slipped my mind since then.
TBH it feels kind of quaint to see someone pearl-clutching about something like "the dictionary has declared irregardless a word!!!!" It's so cute and harmless! A nice distraction from "We're all going to DIE because people keep GOING TO BEACHES."
no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 09:26 pm (UTC)https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/us/coronavirus-florida-miami.html
Like, WHY. I mean apparently it's a very Miami thing, but there's a plague!
no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 10:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 01:50 am (UTC)PS
Date: 2020-07-07 02:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 12:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 12:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 01:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 01:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 09:25 pm (UTC).....LOLOLOL how do they feel about "inflammable."
no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 09:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 10:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 01:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 10:46 pm (UTC)You're like the Word Detective! 😀
people's way of dealing with fear
The disease is manifesting differently now than it did in March:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/health/coronavirus-mortality-testing.html
My thought is that this is because to some degree severity of infection is dose dependent, and now that the weather is good, and people are spending a lot of time outside, spreaders aren't carrying as large a viral load.
That will start changing around September.
no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 11:01 pm (UTC)I do wonder about stuff like long-term effects -- like even if someone young doesn't get very sick, will there be complications or chronic conditions down the road? -- and underreported death rates, and death lag, too. That poor actor who just died was like forty, and he had been sick since April. (I also gotta wonder about immunity....what if it only lasts six months? Two months? I don't think people can get reinfected, but right now, who does know?)
no subject
Date: 2020-07-06 11:13 pm (UTC)Yeah. I am wondering to what extent that recklessness is a reaction to the lockdown, frankly.
I can't find it in my heart to condemn them.
There do seem to be long-term effects in a significant number of recorded cases, which does make me wonder about long-term effects in unrecorded cases. Quite a few viruses—varicella (chickenpox), polio—are associated with post-infection syndromes of various sorts.
But, honestly. No one is going to make those people act differently by demonizing them on social media.
I'm at high risk myself, so I take all necessary precautions.
no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 02:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 12:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 02:41 am (UTC)But while we're alive, we keep living--and helping others to live. That's always been the task, and it's what it is now, too.
no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 02:24 am (UTC)There's a lot of noise out there re: the virus, well-intentioned noise as well as malicious stuff. There's a lot of stuff that's not known, sure, but then there's the problem of people getting their hands on studies and not understanding what they're looking at. But probably more important than understanding everything is developing some shorthand for how much risk you're willing to take and what steps are--generally speaking--helpful for keeping you in your comfort zone. Nothing ever guarantees perfect safety ever; we all develop those heuristics and routines all our lives. It's just that usually we do it without thinking about it, and now we have to think about it.
no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 01:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 01:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 01:42 pm (UTC)(Commented before your revision but am laughing because aaaahhhhh subjunctive.)
no subject
Date: 2020-07-08 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-08 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 01:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 04:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-07 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-11 07:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-12 11:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2020-07-12 03:08 pm (UTC)