Comment on Linguistics
HollowNaught@lemmy.world 1 month ago
While that’s correct and all, it still irks me when somwbody uses a word that has a shorter, older variant. (Gives side-eye to orientated)
Comment on Linguistics
HollowNaught@lemmy.world 1 month ago
While that’s correct and all, it still irks me when somwbody uses a word that has a shorter, older variant. (Gives side-eye to orientated)
DillyDaily@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Is this common in American English? I don’t think I’ve ever seen the word oriented double handled like that. Irregardless, it slew me
GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 month ago
At least with orientated it kind makes sense because orientation is the process of orienting, so to have done the process would be to be orientated in a weird way but irregardless will always irk me because the ir and the less make a double negative, making the meaning as written ‘with regard’ which just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Like if somebody misunderstood a sentence with a double negative we would call them wrong but because it’s a single word they get to change the entire language, regardless of its structure and rules? Seems kinda bogus to me.
psud@aussie.zone 1 month ago
You can double for intensification. Language isn’t maths, you cannot count negations to reach meaning.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Never seen it here.
davidagain@lemmy.world 1 month ago
“Orientated” is reasonably common in British English, I think. I remember thinking someone had misspelt it the first time I saw “oriented” written down.