What is the difference between "though" and "although"?

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Too stupid to look at the main entry? Knock, knock, anyone home? We're not arguing with the fact that it exists in verb form. But it also exists as a noun, which you seem too stupid to comprehend.

I apologize for calling you stupid, but nevertheless the noun form of the word is SLANG. The alternate form used in AsianriceX's example surprised me, because I have never heard anyone use the word in such a way.

That meaning is clearly not the intended usage when you call me a retard- you are implying the slang usage.

You're getting me confused with someone else. I've never contended the use of retard as you're using it. In fact, my brother is mentally handicapped, so I know full well how offensive that can be. I was pointing out the legitimate use of retard as a noun.

 

[Daverino]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Daverino

"Give it up" is not idiomatic.

You made a long post and I really thought you might have something intelligent to add to the discussion, but you are actually just writing a lot of BS that simply isn't true.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/give+up

It's an idiom. Go jump in a lake.

Sorry man, can't help you if know nothing about English grammar:

http://mwe.stanford.edu/20020125.pdf

But you just go on believing everything you read on the web. From a linguistic point of view, an idiom is a word as well. There's no reason that white space cannot exist in the middle of a word, as a word is defined by its semantic role and not its lexicalization. "Heart attack," "air force, "piggy bank" are all single words with multiple tokens.

 

[AsianriceX]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Retard is listed in the OED as a noun and its status as U.S. slang is dependent on context.

In the context of a delay, "A single day's retard," is proper English and is what the 1788 reference is referring to.

Sorry, but that is an entirely archaic use of the word. I have NEVER heard or read "retard" used as a noun in my life, and I am not only old, but learned.

While it may remain proper, the use of "retard" as a noun in its denotative state (as above, meaning 'delay") is non-existent in the US, and probably nearly so in England, as well.

I agree. I had never heard of it used in that manner prior to looking it up.

Originally posted by: Perknose
You can look stuff up to support your misapprehension, son, but it doesn't make it so.

What misapprehension? Did I claim that the noun form was prevalent in modern US English or British English?

 

[Itchrelief]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I can't believe people are so anal retentive about irregardless, when half their internet vocabulary isn't recognized by the dictionary.

Thank you, that is my whole point.

Seems there's a lot of fixation going around on all sides to me...

Pot, kettle, etc. etc. ...

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: RichardE
For the same reason me going doughcheesytomatoecake now means pizza, please put it in the dictionary does not make it a word.

Common usage is the difference. One person saying something doesn't make it a word, but if enough people are saying it such that you can expect the average person to know what it means then it is indeed a word.

Those words, as well as irregardless are not common usage though. Your own argument defeats you.

 

[AnandTech Moderator]

Originally posted by: AsianriceX

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: AsianriceX
Retard is listed in the OED as a noun and its status as U.S. slang is dependent on context.

In the context of a delay, "A single day's retard," is proper English and is what the 1788 reference is referring to.

Sorry, but that is an entirely archaic use of the word. I have NEVER heard or read "retard" used as a noun in my life, and I am not only old, but learned.

While it may remain proper, the use of "retard" as a noun in its denotative state (as above, meaning 'delay") is non-existent in the US, and probably nearly so in England, as well.

I agree. I had never heard of it used in that manner prior to looking it up.

Originally posted by: Perknose
You can look stuff up to support your misapprehension, son, but it doesn't make it so.

What misapprehension? Did I claim that the noun form was prevalent in modern US English or British English?

Ahhh, I see, you weren't! The misapprehension is mine, then, good sir!

 

[Shadow Conception]

their/there/they're

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
their/there/they're

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

People use them all interchangeably.
So, they mean the same thing and are each valid in all of circumstances.

Right, Chiropteran?

:roll:

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: RichardE
For the same reason me going doughcheesytomatoecake now means pizza, please put it in the dictionary does not make it a word.

Common usage is the difference. One person saying something doesn't make it a word, but if enough people are saying it such that you can expect the average person to know what it means then it is indeed a word.

Those words, as well as irregardless are not common usage though. Your own argument defeats you.

Common enough. Everyone knows what "irregardless" is supposed to mean, even the people who argue vehemently that it isn't a word. As well, there are a number of people who actually use it in common speech.

Contrary to, for example, "doughcheesytomatoecake", where only a small handful of people in this thread who read your post and understood wtf you were saying, and NOBODY uses it in common speech.

Huge difference.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
their/there/they're

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

People use them all interchangeably.
So, they mean the same thing and are each valid in all of circumstances.

Right, Chiropteran?

:roll:

No. Read above. Everyone agrees with the meaning of "irregardless", even the people who don't think it's a word.

There is no agreement at all that their/there/they're are interchangeable.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
their/there/they're

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

Hee hee, without a question mark at it's end, your ALL CAPS contribution is little more than a sentence fragment which may or may not be part of a declarative sentence, and thus may be no question at all.

 

[Scarpozzi]

LISTEN PEOPLE!!! There's like a ton of words in the English language that are screwed up. Everyone thinks they know the language, but their obviously mistaken. Its ok that not everyone understands every stinkin word in the digtionary. Drop it.

/thread

 

[yankeesfan]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: yankeesfan

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
their/there/they're

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

People use them all interchangeably.
So, they mean the same thing and are each valid in all of circumstances.

Right, Chiropteran?

:roll:

No. Read above. Everyone agrees with the meaning of "irregardless", even the people who don't think it's a word.

There is no agreement at all that their/there/they're are interchangeable.

I don't. Here's a few examples of what can happen.

Irregular means 'not regular'
Irrational means 'not rational'
Irrelevant means 'not relevant'
Irregardless should mean 'not regardless', or otherwise 'with regard'.

That does not mean the same thing as regardless. It is not logical.

Read about prefixes. Ir- is a prefix that indicates a "not" or an opposite.
http://www.spelling.hemscott.net/prefix3.html

If you want to continue using words that make no logical sense at all, and could perhaps be misinterpreted by a person with a working brain, then go ahead.