Well I did not intend to flame, just point out a minor
grammatical issue. It is double negative because both
the prefix (ir) and suffix (less) negate the root word--
regard.
Also, I didn't disparage or flame, just pointed out
the error. Didn't pass judgment.Well, ok I did
say it was "bad" English. Maybe I should have
just said the word is a double negative, better
yet not said anything. Then again people might
never notice that there is a problem with the word.
Regardless, I'm sorry of Michael felt flamed ;-)

HB

Bill DeWitt <bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote in message
news:3c93dbc5$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "Harold Baize" <bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote in message
> news:3c93cf74@news.povray.org...
> > "irregardless" is bad English. It is a double negative.
>
> Improper use of the phrase "double negative" during a grammar flame, two
> points off.
> Since "irregardless" means regardless in the same way that inflammable
means
> flammable, it is not a double negative unless used in a sentence with a
> negative.
>
> From www.m-w.com
>
> One entry found for double negative.
>
>
> Main Entry: double negative
> Function: noun
> Date: 1827
> : a now nonstandard syntactic construction containing two negatives and
> having a negative meaning <"I didn't hear nothing" is a double negative>
>

Post a reply to this message