<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Regardless vs. Irregardless; Sneaked vs. Snuck; Assure vs. Ensure vs. Insure</title>
	<atom:link href="http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/uncategorized/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/</link>
	<description>The #1 Grammar &#38; Punctuation Resource on the Internet!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:14:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jane</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-10024</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:56:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-10024</guid>
		<description>In this case, the word &lt;em&gt;refer&lt;/em&gt; means &quot;to direct attention usually by clear and specific mention.&quot; Since it is not explicit that attention is directed forward or back, I felt it made the point more clearly to say &quot;refers back&quot; since the pronoun &lt;em&gt;myself&lt;/em&gt; must come after the related word in the sentence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In this case, the word <em>refer</em> means &#8220;to direct attention usually by clear and specific mention.&#8221; Since it is not explicit that attention is directed forward or back, I felt it made the point more clearly to say &#8220;refers back&#8221; since the pronoun <em>myself</em> must come after the related word in the sentence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allison</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-9528</link>
		<dc:creator>Allison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 21:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-9528</guid>
		<description>Thank you on the clarification of sneaked and snuck.  I recall being taught snuck but have recently seen &quot;sneaked&quot; in novels and it had me confused for sure.  As for other grammar mishaps, I also notice when people THINK they are catching themselves and sounding sophisticated when they say &quot;It was a really fun time for Billy and me....I mean Billy and I.&quot; Or just &quot;The present was for Amy and I.&quot;  People think that &quot;I&quot; is always right when it&#039;s not the case.  I hear this mistake EVERYWHERE.  Drives me nuts.  And like another responder said... the irony is the person is all proud and confident that they are speaking correctly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you on the clarification of sneaked and snuck.  I recall being taught snuck but have recently seen &#8220;sneaked&#8221; in novels and it had me confused for sure.  As for other grammar mishaps, I also notice when people THINK they are catching themselves and sounding sophisticated when they say &#8220;It was a really fun time for Billy and me&#8230;.I mean Billy and I.&#8221; Or just &#8220;The present was for Amy and I.&#8221;  People think that &#8220;I&#8221; is always right when it&#8217;s not the case.  I hear this mistake EVERYWHERE.  Drives me nuts.  And like another responder said&#8230; the irony is the person is all proud and confident that they are speaking correctly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jk macdonald</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-8622</link>
		<dc:creator>jk macdonald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 23:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-8622</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s not &quot;refers back;&quot; &quot;re&quot; means back so the word &quot;back&quot; is redundant, just like the word &quot;tooth&quot; in tooth dentist or &quot;woman&quot; in widow woman is redundant. LEAVE OFF THE WORD &quot;BACK&quot;. JUST SAY &quot;IT REFERS TO ANOTHER WORD.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s not &#8220;refers back;&#8221; &#8220;re&#8221; means back so the word &#8220;back&#8221; is redundant, just like the word &#8220;tooth&#8221; in tooth dentist or &#8220;woman&#8221; in widow woman is redundant. LEAVE OFF THE WORD &#8220;BACK&#8221;. JUST SAY &#8220;IT REFERS TO ANOTHER WORD.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jane</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-8108</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 04:06:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-8108</guid>
		<description>You&#039;re right, it is not grammatically correct to use the reflexive pronoun &lt;em&gt;myself&lt;/em&gt; unless it refers back to another word in the sentence. An example of correct usage would be: &lt;em&gt;I worked myself to the bone. &lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re right, it is not grammatically correct to use the reflexive pronoun <em>myself</em> unless it refers back to another word in the sentence. An example of correct usage would be: <em>I worked myself to the bone. </em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RB</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-8074</link>
		<dc:creator>RB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-8074</guid>
		<description>Many people, especially in formal or corporate situations, think that it&#039;s okay (and in fact, super formal and fancy) to replace the word &quot;I&quot; or &quot;me&quot; with the word &quot;myself&quot; whenever they want to. For example, they think it&#039;s okay to say &quot;Please submit the financial report to either Sally or myself.&quot; The irony is that they are using the word &quot;myself&quot; to sound sophisticated, when in fact it only makes them sound uneducated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many people, especially in formal or corporate situations, think that it&#8217;s okay (and in fact, super formal and fancy) to replace the word &#8220;I&#8221; or &#8220;me&#8221; with the word &#8220;myself&#8221; whenever they want to. For example, they think it&#8217;s okay to say &#8220;Please submit the financial report to either Sally or myself.&#8221; The irony is that they are using the word &#8220;myself&#8221; to sound sophisticated, when in fact it only makes them sound uneducated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jane</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-8064</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:19:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-8064</guid>
		<description>I  do not believe you are being picky. You are just more conscious of proper grammar than some people. There is no formal rule regarding putting &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; or &lt;em&gt;me&lt;/em&gt; last when referring to yourself and others. It is a matter of courtesy. &quot;Mary and I went to the movies&quot; is correct rather than &quot;Myself and Mary&quot; or &quot;Me and Mary&quot; because &lt;em&gt;Mary&lt;/em&gt; and&lt;em&gt; I &lt;/em&gt;are the subjects of the sentence. The subject form of the pronoun is &lt;em&gt;I.&lt;/em&gt; &lt;em&gt;Myself &lt;/em&gt;is used only when it refers back to another word in the sentence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I  do not believe you are being picky. You are just more conscious of proper grammar than some people. There is no formal rule regarding putting <em>I</em> or <em>me</em> last when referring to yourself and others. It is a matter of courtesy. &#8220;Mary and I went to the movies&#8221; is correct rather than &#8220;Myself and Mary&#8221; or &#8220;Me and Mary&#8221; because <em>Mary</em> and<em> I </em>are the subjects of the sentence. The subject form of the pronoun is <em>I.</em> <em>Myself </em>is used only when it refers back to another word in the sentence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jude Smith</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-7993</link>
		<dc:creator>Jude Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-7993</guid>
		<description>Why are people putting themselves first in their sentences? 

For example, &quot;Myself and Mary went to the movies&quot;. Even people I expect to know rules of grammar do it. I was taught to place my link last in a sentence, &#039;Mary and I went...&#039;. 

It&#039;s as though they know that &#039;Me and Mary...&#039; is unacceptable, but &#039;Myself and Mary...&#039; is OK. Am I just being picky?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why are people putting themselves first in their sentences? </p>
<p>For example, &#8220;Myself and Mary went to the movies&#8221;. Even people I expect to know rules of grammar do it. I was taught to place my link last in a sentence, &#8216;Mary and I went&#8230;&#8217;. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s as though they know that &#8216;Me and Mary&#8230;&#8217; is unacceptable, but &#8216;Myself and Mary&#8230;&#8217; is OK. Am I just being picky?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jane</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-8040</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 01:54:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-8040</guid>
		<description>Former President George W. Bush may have sensitized your ears to that pronunciation but he isn&#039;t the first to use it. My old 1973 &lt;em&gt;Webster&#039;s New Collegiate Dictionary &lt;/em&gt;shows the nyu-kye-ler pronunciation but indicates that it is &quot;nonstandard.&quot; Some of us may not like it, but modern dictionaries, such as &lt;em&gt;Merriam-Webster&#039;s Dictionary &lt;/em&gt;lists two acceptable pronunciations of the word: &#039;nu-kle-er OR &#039;nyu-kye-ler and &lt;em&gt;The American Heritage Dictionary &lt;/em&gt;lists noo-klee-er, nyoo- or, by metathesis, -kyuh-ler [metathesis meaning &quot;transposition within a word of letters, sounds, or syllables&quot;]. (By the way, when referring to a president in the generic sense, as in your second sentence, it does not need to be capitalized.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Former President George W. Bush may have sensitized your ears to that pronunciation but he isn&#8217;t the first to use it. My old 1973 <em>Webster&#8217;s New Collegiate Dictionary </em>shows the nyu-kye-ler pronunciation but indicates that it is &#8220;nonstandard.&#8221; Some of us may not like it, but modern dictionaries, such as <em>Merriam-Webster&#8217;s Dictionary </em>lists two acceptable pronunciations of the word: &#8216;nu-kle-er OR &#8216;nyu-kye-ler and <em>The American Heritage Dictionary </em>lists noo-klee-er, nyoo- or, by metathesis, -kyuh-ler [metathesis meaning "transposition within a word of letters, sounds, or syllables"]. (By the way, when referring to a president in the generic sense, as in your second sentence, it does not need to be capitalized.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jane</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-8017</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 14:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-8017</guid>
		<description>The dictionaries that I have seen identify &lt;em&gt;irregardless&lt;/em&gt; as nonstandard English for &lt;em&gt;regardless&lt;/em&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The dictionaries that I have seen identify <em>irregardless</em> as nonstandard English for <em>regardless</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Heather</title>
		<link>http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/definitions/regardless-vs-irregardless-sneaked-vs-snuck/#comment-7970</link>
		<dc:creator>Heather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 23:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://data.grammarbook.com/blog/?p=100#comment-7970</guid>
		<description>Ever since former U.S. President George W. Bush mispronounced &#039;nuclear&#039; as &#039;new-cue-luhr&#039;,  I have heard it increasingly mispronounced as such in the news media. Precedent set by a President does not make it proper English!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ever since former U.S. President George W. Bush mispronounced &#8216;nuclear&#8217; as &#8216;new-cue-luhr&#8217;,  I have heard it increasingly mispronounced as such in the news media. Precedent set by a President does not make it proper English!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

