Off Topic
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
My free Subway was crap.
Alt: Non-matching blue socks.
AltAlt: See above
Monty will be happy, we're making a card for someone called 'S Patel'
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:37, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)
Alt: Non-matching blue socks.
AltAlt: See above
Monty will be happy, we're making a card for someone called 'S Patel'
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:37, 2 replies, latest was 12 years ago)
Irregardless is a cunt word
I don't care how long its been wrongly used its still wrong.
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:43, Reply)
I don't care how long its been wrongly used its still wrong.
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:43, Reply)
Yourn a cunt word
Irregardless
Adverb
Without paying attention to the present situation; despite the prevailing circumstances.
Synonyms
notwithstanding
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:45, Reply)
Irregardless
Adverb
Without paying attention to the present situation; despite the prevailing circumstances.
Synonyms
notwithstanding
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:45, Reply)
How does that word differ from 'regardless'?
- other than that a normal person would use the latter and a bent spastic the former.
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:47, Reply)
- other than that a normal person would use the latter and a bent spastic the former.
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:47, Reply)
Irregardless means the same as regardless, but the negative prefix ir- merely duplicates the suffix -less, and is unnecessary. The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English.
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:47, Reply)
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 14:47, Reply)
No
The words inflammable and flammable both have the same meaning, ‘easily set on fire’. This might seem surprising, given that the prefix in- normally has a negative meaning (as in indirect and insufficient), and so it might be expected that inflammable would mean the opposite of flammable, i.e. ‘not easily set on fire’.
In fact, inflammable is formed using a different Latin prefix in-, which has the meaning ‘into’ and here has the effect of intensifying the meaning of the word in English.
Flammable is a far commoner word than inflammable and carries less risk of confusion.
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 15:07, Reply)
The words inflammable and flammable both have the same meaning, ‘easily set on fire’. This might seem surprising, given that the prefix in- normally has a negative meaning (as in indirect and insufficient), and so it might be expected that inflammable would mean the opposite of flammable, i.e. ‘not easily set on fire’.
In fact, inflammable is formed using a different Latin prefix in-, which has the meaning ‘into’ and here has the effect of intensifying the meaning of the word in English.
Flammable is a far commoner word than inflammable and carries less risk of confusion.
( , Tue 25 Jun 2013, 15:07, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread