[ruthmarx]

> English is defined by its usage

To an extent, but people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also.

> the historical sense of that phrase is not actually in live use outside of "well actually" hypercorrections.

No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use, just not in areas you participate in. It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'.

[lmm]

> people using language incorrectly isn't a reason for everyone else to start using it incorrectly also

Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless. Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated.

> No, it's pretty active and certainly in live use

The last research I saw claimed otherwise.

> It's very disingenuous or ignorant to call the correct use 'historical'

Nothing disingenuous; to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different) is not active at least in general writing (it may still be used as a term of art in philosophy, but if so I don't think that changes anything). Certainly it's a minority use.

[ruthmarx]

> Language is a tool for communication, a phrase that will be misunderstood is worse than useless.

Sure.

> Where a particular usage makes a distinction that is important to convey then it may be worth preserving, but when a historical quirk merely adds confusion and inconsistency, the disappearance and ironing out of that quirk is to be celebrated.

It's not a historical quirk, it's the valid and modern usage.

> The last research I saw claimed otherwise.

Then it was clearly insufficient. How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so?

Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it.

> to the best of my good-faith knowledge the older usage

You keep coating your replies with this, but it's not older or historical, just correct.

> (certainly not "correct" given that most listeners/readers will understand it to mean something different)

No, it is absolutely the correct usage.

By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well.

> is not active at least in general writing

Yes, it is, and often articles that use it correctly will call out incorrect usage.

> Certainly it's a minority use.

Maybe, but your usage is plain incorrect and is as bad as using irregardless.

[lmm]

> How deep a dive did you do? What motivated you to do so?

I saw it come up in a discussion about linguistic prescriptionism and overcorrection, probably even on this site, and followed through to someone who had counted and analysed use in e.g. major newspapers.

> Your entire reasoning here reads like you were corrected and resisted and invented a justification so you could keep using the phrase you are comfortable using the way you are comfortable using it.

And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior. So let's not stoop to psychoanalysing each other.

> By your reasoning we should all start using 'irregardless' as well.

I don't think "irregardless" is more easily understood than, or conveys a useful distinction from, "regardless". Indeed the opposite, it's more confusing as it sounds like it's a double negation that should mean regardful.

[ruthmarx]

> I saw it come up in a discussion about linguistic prescriptionism and overcorrection, probably even on this site, and followed through to someone who had counted and analysed use in e.g. major newspapers.

If you could find that same discussion or source, it would add a lot to the discussion. Change the tide of it, in fact.

> And your posts read like you don't get many wins in your life so instead of learning and improving you cling to the idea that you're objectively "right" about this so that you can feel superior.

Personal attacks like that are very much against the HN guidelines. My statement was not a personal attack, but a reasonable hypothesis as what I described is freuently observed behavior. Saying you were corrected and took issue is rather different from claiming I have never won and am entirely incapable of learning or improving. I consider this escalation an emotional response and thus an indicator, but I agree let's stop psychoanalyzing each other.

You should realize however, it's rather absurd to include a distraction in your comment to bait discussion on this point. I know you claimed your motivation was the opposite, but that's frankly hard to believe.

But, you want to say I'm incapable of learning and improving. OK. All I ask is that you support your claim that the correct use is actually the historical use and not in widespread usage.

> Indeed the opposite

Not the opposite, both are incorrect variations of a valid word/term.