• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    20
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    While that’s correct and all, it still irks me when somebody uses a word that has a shorter, older variant. (Gives side-eye to orientated)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      114 months ago

      orientated

      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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 months 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          You can double for intensification. Language isn’t maths, you cannot count negations to reach meaning.

      • tiredofsametab
        link
        fedilink
        34 months ago

        I’m a native US English speaker. I would only ever say oriented. As a kid, not knowing the “correct” form, I got corrected for saying orientated. I watch content from a lot of countries and do hear at least some British English speakers using orientated.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14 months 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.