Irregardless, Grammar is our Friend

[colette]

That still doesn't make it correct. A lot of things have been put into the dictionary, only because it is used so frequently.

Reiterate is still a redundancy.

it·er·ate ( P )
tr.v. it·er·at·ed, it·er·at·ing, it·er·ates
To say or perform again; repeat

re·it·er·ate ( P )
tr.v. re·it·er·at·ed, re·it·er·at·ing, re·it·er·ates
To say or do again

It's the same thing.

A lot of things have been put into the dictionary, only because it is used so frequently.

But who are we (or you) to say what is right and what is wrong in terms of language and what words mean and what they don't. In the purest sense of language, words mean what people understand them to mean, which means that iterate has lost its meaning and reiterate should replace it in the dictionary. It's hardly the first time this has happened or the last. It's just the word you've chosen to focus on.

While you seem to worship past meanings of words, I love to watch the way they shift and change and study the way that reflects our society.

P.S. I never said "reiterate" wasn't a redundancy. I just said it could no longer be considered a grammar mistake considering its definition in the OED and its common understanding in speech. I was an English Literature TA while I worked on my PhD in English Literature, and I know that by the rules of my university, I would have gotten in trouble if I'd marked a student down if they'd used "reiterate" instead of "iterate" based on the fact that its definition is almost exactly the same in the OED and that it's come to mean the exact same thing in speech.

[shriekingeel]

One of the things that those of us who are compulsive grammar pedants understand is that this stuff really is important. People who say, "what's the difference?" need to understand that, without rules, there is a point at which language no longer communicates.

I thought about this when--to bring a little celebrity-ness to this thread--I saw the article about Rosie O'Donnell's blog tirade against the Letterman show. It's completely indecipherable:

"hello rob i said and off he went: how dare i try to steal daves gig by calling les 'you are not a friend of the letterman show - rosie.'"

[dwanollah]

One of the things that those of us who are compulsive grammar pedants understand is that this stuff really is important. People who say, "what's the difference?" need to understand that, without rules, there is a point at which language no longer communicates.

Word. Not only that, but it's completely ineffective to write like that... especially when you're trying to argue a point. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten vitriolic emails about something I wrote on my website, but how can I take it seriously if the person didn't even bother to run a spell check?! Here's something I received a couple weeks ago from a guy who owns The David House (which folks in LA might recognize); 5 years ago, I posted pictures of it at Christmas, making fun of it.

HOW ARE YOU ....YOU WORLDY WOMAN! I AM THE GENTLEMAN OF WHOM YOU HAVE VARIOUS COMMENTS TO MAKE REGARDING MY CHOICES OF CHRISTMAS ORNAMENTATION OF MY "HIGH-END" CORNER ESTATE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE VERY AFFLUENT HANCOCK PARK. I WILL NOT COMMENT ON YOUR OPINION, INDEED IT ISYOURS. HOWEVER, SINCE YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO BE "DOWN RIGHT RUDE" OVER THE "WOLRD WIDE WEB"...... LET'S LET IT RIP!

OBVIOUSLY YOU TOOK IT UPON YOURSELF TO TAKE AND SEND PHOTOS OF YOUR FAT , UGLY FACE, AND BODY, AND TEETH, AND, SHOES. BUT YOUR LONELY DISMAL EXIXTANCE OF OF AN OTHERWISE BORING LIFE YOU CHOSE TO MAKE ME MORE A PART OF YOUR EXIXTENCE, BY TAKING THE TIME TO ACKNOWLEDGE, AND WHATEVER YOU BELIEVE IT IS THAT I REPRESENT. WHEN PEOPLE OF MY ILK CAN FIANCIALLY SUPPORT OUR ECCENTRICITIES,BY WAY OF HOME DECORATION, AND LEAVE OURSELVES OPEN FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU. FAIR GAME. SO ARE YOU! IF YOU HAVE MONEY, THEN THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR YOU TO LOOK THE WAY YOU DO AND THROW STONES, AND IF YOU DONT HAVE MONEY, THEN SHUT THE HELL UP,. AND SIT YOUR FAT ASS DOWN! HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF I WENT ONLINE AND SHOWED THE WORLD A PICTURE OF THE "UGLIEST BEAST" TO EVER PHOTOGRAPH IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY... AND IF YOU SEE IT...... SHOOT IT!

How on earth am I supposed to take anything this guy says seriously? Someone of his "FIANCIALLY ILK" can surely afford a computer that includes spellcheck...?

I used to get into it with my students that people shouldn't "judge" other people by their lack of writing skills. Ha. Bullshit. Put forth some effort, kids! It sure as hell does matter!

[underjoyed]

Oh dear, Dwanollah. Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So I snark. It's much more fulfilling.

The articulate gentleman (of whom you have various comments) reminded me of one of my pet peeves: gratuitous, random quotation marks. I have a dim suspicion that many of the barely literate (over)use them because they think they're akin to italicizing or underlining a word or phrase in order to emphasize the point. It "drives me up the wall". For the love of God, "cut it out". It makes you look like a "moron".

[batmom]

This weekend's BC comic has an almost amusing misuse of quotation marks (I say almost because the opinion he's expressing is maddening in its stupidity). Clearly, he's using quotes to indicate that he doesn't consider the theory of evolution to have any validity, however, by putting theory in quotes, he's implying it's not a theory at all. Perhaps, dare I say it, it's fairly well supported scientific fact?

[Deleted]

Colette said:

But who are we (or you) to say what is right and what is wrong in terms of language and what words mean and what they don't. In the purest sense of language, words mean what people understand them to mean, which means that iterate has lost its meaning and reiterate should replace it in the dictionary. It's hardly the first time this has happened or the last. It's just the word you've chosen to focus on.

Wow, while this is only written word, what an attitude! As it's been stated, rules are there for a reason.

While you seem to worship past meanings of words, I love to watch the way they shift and change and study the way that reflects our society.

It's not about worshipping past meanings of words, it's about being irritated that the NEW meanings or uses of words are incorrect. If people would use them in a correct manner, they would never appear in the OED or Webster's or Funk and Wagnall's.

P.S. I never said "reiterate" wasn't a redundancy. I just said it could no longer be considered a grammar mistake considering its definition in the OED and its common understanding in speech. I was an English Literature TA while I worked on my PhD in English Literature, and I know that by the rules of my university, I would have gotten in trouble if I'd marked a student down if they'd used "reiterate" instead of "iterate" based on the fact that its definition is almost exactly the same in the OED and that it's come to mean the exact same thing in speech.

And I never called it a grammatical mistake, I pointed out the redundancy of it.

It's too bad you would have "gotten into trouble"' for marking a student down. How about instead of marking said student down, just pointing out that reiterate is a redundancy? Maybe then they'll just start using the correct form of the word.

Using incorrect grammar is pure laziness. Having incorrect grammar become part of our current speech just proves how lazy society is. Instead of taking the time and initiative to correct what is wrong, let's just change the rules and make it right. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I don't claim to be grammatically correct 100% of the time. No one is.


ETA: I just heard another one on the news. "Orientated."

For Pete's sake people, it's ORIENTED!!!!!!!!

[ratssenoj]

If you're looking for material for this thread, just read my posts. I'm not worthy.

[underjoyed]

ETA: I just heard another one on the news. "Orientated."

For Pete's sake people, it's ORIENTED!!!!!!!!

Actually, in the United Kingdom it's "orientate". In North America, people say "orient". I'm not sure about Australia or New Zealand, although I would guess that they also say "orientate". "Orient" is simply preferred in American English, while "orientate" is preferred in the United Kingdom.

According to one source, both originally meant 'to face, or to make something face, the east'. Both are now used to mean 'get one's bearings', 'adjust to a new situation'.

So it is not incorrect or wrong to say "orientate", although it will sound odd to North American ears (I never quite got used to it, and I lived in the UK for seven years), just as "orient" (for example, "I found it difficult to orient myself to driving on the left hand side of the road when I moved to the UK") sounds very American to British ears. In fact, I've met grammar snobs in the UK who go into hysterics at the North American usage of "orient" as an instance of an obnoxious Americanism (by which they mean bastardization of the proper English), which annoys me, but I don't want to go too off-topic. As far as I know, neither is wrong.

To-may-do/To-mah-to.

[Deleted]

This discussion of "iterate" vs. "reiterate" is starting to make me crazy. The subject is dying a very slow death and I wish I had the power to pull the plug.

This may be stretching the topic, since it's a phrase rather than an actual grammar issue... But "at this point in time" gets on my nerves.

Oh, and again stretching the topic (sorry) but this from today's Imdb newsregarding Britney Spears' decision to go for a reality show: "...she maintains it is the right decision and the right time to give TV viewers across the world exclusive access to her marriage..."

Now, am I being picky, or does it not make sense to say that "viewers across the world" are getting "exclusive" access? (The writing at Imdb can be awful.)

[underjoyed]

Oh, and again stretching the topic (sorry) but this from today's Imdb newsregarding Britney Spears' decision to go for a reality show: "...she maintains it is the right decision and the right time to give TV viewers across the world exclusive access to her marriage..."

Now, am I being picky, or does it not make sense to say that "viewers across the world" are getting "exclusive" access? (The writing at Imdb can be awful.)

I guess, strictly speaking, that it's not incompatible. "Viewers across the world" does tend to imply everybody can see it, which begs the question of how, then, access can be "exclusive". But I suppose that access to the Newlyfeds is exclusive to those viewers worldwide who have, or have access to, a television (and who are looking for another reason to weep for the future of the human race).

However, I suspect the writers may not have logic-ed it out like that - they just whacked two clicheed phrases together ("viewers across the world" and "exclusive access") and didn't stop to think that it's kind of a strange and implicitly contradictory way of putting it.