Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!muffy
From: muffy@lll-crg.ARPA (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Semantic Reversals (irregardless)
Message-ID: <458@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 21:57:24 EST
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.458
Posted: Tue Mar 12 21:57:24 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 03:14:09 EST
References: <108@ISM780.UUCP> <947@dual.UUCP> <446@scc.UUCP> <950@dual.UUCP>
Reply-To: muffy@lll-crg.UUCP (Muffy Barkocy)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 26
Summary: 

In article <950@dual.UUCP> hav@dual.UUCP (Helen Anne Vigneau) writes:
>
>I'd say my face is red, except that I think the ones with the red faces
>should be the editors of AHD.  Honestly, now, who out there thinks that
>nonstandard words should be included in the dictionary as acceptable usages?
>(This is a serious question.)  Colloquialisms like "ain't" are one thing, but
>*wrong* usages?
>
>Helen Anne
>
>     {ucbvax,ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs,decwrl,unisoft,fortune,sun,nsc}!dual!hav 

Wait a minute.  (As I pull out my Webster's (Merriam-Webster))

nonstandard  adj  1 : not standard 2 : not conforming in pronunciation,
grammatical construction, idiom, or word choice to the usage generally
characteristic of educated native speakers of a language.

Okay, I see nothing here that implies that the usage is *wrong*.  If
someone else does, please point it out to me.  Also, I recall that
the original posting mentioned something about this word becoming 
common usage...which would seem to imply that it is becoming standard.
Of course, this may not mean that it is becoming common among "edu-
cated" speakers of English, which seems to be required.

					   Muffy