W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2009

Re: [css-fonts] "Irregardless"? REALLY?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:47:47 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0912020847p31a8c680wcb05ab5776526624@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Eric A. Meyer wrote:
>>   So just last night, I was reading up on 'font-size'adjust' (3.7) and stumbled into the following bit of prose:
>>   "It does this by adjusting the font-size so that the x-height
>>    is the same irregardless of the font used."
>>   Horrified, I searched the document and discovered it AGAIN in the description of 'unicode-range' (4.5):
>>   "Code points outside of the defined unicode-range are ignored,
>>    irregardless of whether the font contains a glyph for that
>>    code point or not."
>> I believe both instances should be changed to "regardless", because that's an actual word.  "irrespective" would also be an acceptable substitute, though in my opinion just barely.  See <http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/irregardless> for more information, if that's really necessary.
>>   Also, never tell me who did this, because if I find out I'll be honor-bound to follow through on my public statement and slap them like a haddock.  (Yes, "like", not "with".)
>> --
> Enough people use "irrespective" to make it an actual word. It is hardly the first instance of a word in English that seems to mean the opposite of what it should, or of what it originally meant.
> Dictionaries can be both proscriptive and descriptive. Misuse of words turns out to be one of the biggest ways that languages change and evolve[1], and it always involves traditionalists bemoaning the disintegration of their language. But basically, if enough people misuse a word in the same way, the word takes on that new meaning, and dictionaries eventually have to adapt by describing the new meaning.
> [1] <http://www.unfoldingoflanguage.com/>

I still think "regardless" is a better word choice there.  Let's not
promote silly opposites-mean-the-same-thing word pairs like

Received on Wednesday, 2 December 2009 16:48:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:31 UTC