[Rhodes22-list] Grammar

[Philip]

Joe/Hadz (I can't decide so I'll use both)

     Likewise, I remember "Ain't ain't in the dictionary so I ain't going to
use ain't no more!"  as a little ditty to remember not to use ain't and
double negatives.  The problem is ain't IS now in the dictionary.

Philip




 -----Original Message-----
From: 	rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org
[mailto:rhodes22-list-bounces at rhodes22.org]  On Behalf Of Joseph Hadzima
Sent:	Saturday, October 28, 2006 1:10 PM
To:	The Rhodes 22 mail list
Subject:	RE: [Rhodes22-list]  Grammar

Hi Phillip:

Once upon a time I did look up the "term", and the
dictionary I uesd claimed it to be a "humorous, redundent
form of regardless".  So I guess we can laugh at people
that use it (uless they have a gun or are larger than us)?

BTW, here is a link to a side story about the word.

http://www.hfac.uh.edu/English/classes/GU4322/items/irregardless.html

I fear that since somemany use it, it may one day be
considered correct; along with the most evil of all phrases
"very unique"!


joe/hadz


--- Philip <3drecon at comcast.net> wrote:

> It's object and direct object et al.  The Dative,
> Accusative, Nominative and
> Genitive exist in German too (". . . in den Wagen" (acc)
> or ". . . auf dem
> Tisch" (dat) (in the car or on the table)).  Since we
> don't parse the
> grammar that way anymore, nothing sounds strange to
> anyone and people add
> things to sound important.  It is the same with the word
> irregardless.  I
> knew an Australian fellow who used it incessantly.  I
> tried to correct him
> and he insisted it was a legitimate word.  I defied him
> to look it up and
> show me but he never would.
>
> Philip
>

__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list