Alert icon
We're changing our privacy policy. This stuff matters.  Learn more  Dismiss

"Irregardless" (Steve's Grammatical Observations)

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
5,404
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Aug 3, 2009

See the Steve's Grammar DEMO REEL with links to other episodes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWtk1JtCnls

Steve's Grammatical Observations is now on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Steves-Grammatical-Observations/106180336096950

Steve's Grammatical Observations brings you a closer examination of commonly overlooked grammatical blunders we commit on a daily basis... unless Steve has been smoking too much of the ganja, in which case he blabbers on incoherently and ends dismally in failure.

  • likes, 5 dislikes

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (Plomomedia)

  • I'm going to delete this video and put up the shorter version, i.e. exclusively the part before i start not making sense.

  • Linguistic evolution has nothing to do with the theory of evolution from science class. People think that they have to attack a word at every instance in order to attack the theory that happens to use that word. I think you spent too much time defending the word "evolution" to people but didn't explain that it has many meanings, and you are not using the meaning that some people dislike.

  • @Kiddalee evolution as I learned in science class and later in college paleontology is a process of gradual change and branching via genetic variation and sexual isolation; there may not be sex and genes in linguistics, but there can still be gradual change and branching. a sort of memetic variation. anyway, i was def too high in this video to make any sense.

  • @Plomomedia Yeah, but those opposed to the theory of evolution should only be opposed to certain statements it makes, such as the timeframe, and the need for death to create new species; these people need to understand that branching and changing is possible in language, and you can use a familiar word without it being the same biological theory.

  • @Kiddalee i see what you're saying.

  • Steve: I really enjoy your observations!

    Do you have a blog or something?

  • @miliscatis I'm glad you enjoy! I don't focus on the grammar stuff all that often, so I have no other venue for the grammar rants, other than the occasional youtube video. but you're welcome to add me on facebook (/plomomedia). Maybe i will make a blog page for Steve's Grammar, if i can find the time.

Top Comments

  • I am loving your vids - from one grammar nazi to another!

  • @RuaridhHunter maybe in scotland!

Video Responses

This video is a response to A very SCARY word!
see all

All Comments (38)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @Plomomedia

    NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo­oooo

  • Your the best, man! Keep it real and keep correcting!

    You're*

  • But Sarah Palin invented refudiate! /s Actually that word is pretty good, just everybody hating it since it came from her. Anybody else and nobody would even think twice about it.

  • Look up the Jespersen cycle, if anything fails in the arguments about this word it is the conflation of logic with language.

    I use irregardless to annoy positivists.

  • IRREGARDLESS u be trippin white boy

  • Irregardless must be the ur-Palinism. pls refudiate.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more