Chapped Hands?

underbookification is in Websters, by the way. It means:


Underbookification 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 \"book\" instead.





;)

#50: So you\'re saying i can add any prefix and/or suffix to any word and it will be a technically, grammatically correct word? i can take the word \"book\" and create the word \"underbookification\" and be grammatically correct? sorry but that\'s just wrong, no matter who might have said it. i actually have read books on grammar and english usage, and i find the concept you\'re suggesting to be utterly ludicrous. please point me to a reference that will confirm this rule. i\'ve read plenty and i\'m sure i would have noticed a rule like that.

And I must add, YOUR ALL STUPENDOUSLY CRAPULENT!

Hey #39 go use your silly made up words made up by your silly
country somewhere else. While shooting someone :)

I\'ll go wrestle a croc\' now. \'

The great thing about grammar is that there are no set rules. Kinda like sociology and philosophy, it\'s complete apathy that drives us towards words like this.

Uni?? Cool I love that game!

draw four owns

#47: I can\'t think of a way to prove it to you, it\'s just somethin I know. A friend of mine does Linguistics at uni and my father was an English teacher so I pick up all these strange facts about grammar and speech. The best thing to do would be to check out some grammar or linguistics textbooks if your that keen. I may be wrong, but as far as I know that\'s the way it works. I must admit I didn\'t believe it the first time I heard it either.

(Oh remember where I heard it now. I was in my English class in Year 11 and my teacher was giving us a class on grammar after correcting essays.... yeah pretty boring I know... we fooled around making stupidly long words in class)

well how about AINT OR AIN\'T

Irregardless of the prior posts, I say it is a word and it should be use on a regular basis .Irregardless of what Lex has to say, we should all push forward.Irregardless of the consequence ,brutal drove home the point.

\"Technically you can add as many prefixes and suffixes as you like and it is still technically a \'word\' in the grammatical sense\"

There\'s no rule in grammar to support this as far as I know. can you show us one?

It all sounds a bit hinky to me.

Just on the irregardless debate.... regard is a word, we can all agree on that. Technically you can add as many prefixes and suffixes as you like and it is still technically a \'word\' in the grammatical sense, however, it\'s pretty useless if nobdy knows what you mean. I suppose in a way, irregardless is like saying disregardless. It\'s technically a word but using a double negative like that has no purpose other than to sound more important than it really is.

irregargay.

\"You\'re right. Webster\'s has no clue about the lexography and definitions of words. Thanks for setting me straight.\"

yes, when in doubt, resort to vague sarcasm that doesn\'t really commit you to an opinion one way or the other.

i do stand corrected though: \"irregardless\" *is* more than a common mistake. it is a common mistake that found its way into the dictionary -- as a \"non-standard\" word. Non-standard, of course being another way of saying \"common mistake.\"

#27-
as is embiggens.

cot

hehe.. another word widely used but not recognized in webster is \"impactful\". It\'s another perfectly cromulent word.

I used irregardless mostly cause it sounded funny on a boston-kids skit on snl. So the five of us that know what I mean would read it and find it funny.

I never claimed it was a real word, I just typed it :)

You\'re right. Webster\'s has no clue about the lexography and definitions of words. Thanks for setting me straight.

indeego, you should reveal your source if you are going to quote someone else word for word. that \"explanation\" is horse poopy, by the way. \"irregardless\" is a common mistake, nothing more.

http://www.bimmer.org/z3/messages/archive/msgsy1998w39/34882.html

Irregardless

Do you see the double negative?

#25: the difference there is that drills aren\'t made for you to use on your fingers. but mickey d\'s coffee is supposed to come in contact with your flesh, and according to that article they were serving it at a temperature that would give you 3rd degree burns if you drink it right away. in that case it is dangerous to use it for its intended purpose. on the other hand, everybody knows coffee is hot, and that it will hurt if you spill it on yourself or drink it too fast. i have a scar from third degree burn from \"household\" coffee that i got when i was six years old. i wonder why mcdonald\'s wasn\'t considered negligent *before* someone spilled the coffee on their crotch. probly because it is a fact of life that hot coffee is hot. seems like she got hurt pretty bad though, which sucks. but i bet if she were at her neighbor\'s house and burned herself with a cup of coffee, she wouldn\'t be suing.

Aint no such freakin\' word as irreguardless. I dun lernd \'dat at hi skool.

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.

You know, I had Jury Duty for the first time a few weeks ago (after being threatened with a fine and imprisonment if ignored my final summons. :) I remember it as an experience to sit on my ass for 2 days as much as a chance to reinforce my cynicism.

The civil case was about some old lady suing the city of new york for an \"improperly maintained sidewalk curb\" because she slipped and fell while getting out of her cab, twisting her ankle. Oh, and this happened way back in 1988 if I remember right. When the judge asked if any of us potential jurors had any problems being fair and impartial in this particular case, half of us (of 30 or so) said yes and were excused.

pfft.

FYI here at work we have a steamer that spews forth steamed water for tea at exactly the same temperature as the MCdonald\'s case derived. 190 degrees. I will sip the tea straight from the cup... There are no warnings on the faucet or the tea manufacturer. Guess they are getting away with murder!!

Doh, just read #16.

I\'ve been notified that \"Irregardless\" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Jack, is \"Irregardless\" a real word?

#21... all I need to hear from that site is:
Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup.

and I know the woman is at some fault. In a car, opening coffee between your legs, at the most MCDonald\'s should send a get well card. Why should they be held accountable for her actions? When Black and Decker sells me a drill and I nick my hand while drilling a server rack, I didn\'t whine about it...

crap i meant #18

#16 LOL, I remember when being \"133t\" meant cheating at Track&Field by using a pen between the 2 run buttons so you could go turbo-speed. haha

man, except for all those damn quarters .. them was da days...

hey everybody, we\'re not responsible for our actions anymore! yaaaaaaaay!!

#13:

Know the facts, then make judgements.

http://www.caoc.com/facts.htm

The directions on proper use were included with the game. If they are too stupid to fucking read then let them have blisters. Since proper directions were included I really don\'t understand why Nintendo is caving in to this.


my 2¢

#16, irrelevant.

This is such bullshit back in the 1980\'s I played that track and field arcade game for so long and having to rotate the joystick so much my hands bleed...but did I sue ATARI...no