This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
English language (monolingual) [Non-PRO] Tourism & Travel / regard vs regards
English term or phrase:regard vs regards
the term "regard" is used in almost any field or situation, business or casual. people seem to use "...in regards to..." a lot, it doesn't sound like correct language as i learned it, the singular "regard" is used if you're speaking about one item or several items.
Explanation: This question sent me scuttling to my Collins dictionary, because "**in** regard(s) to" sounds so wrong to me. I believed that '**with** regard to' or 'as regards' were the correct forms.
According to Collins: "VERB ... as regards (preposition) in respect of; concerning ... NOUN ... reference, relation or connection with regard to or in regard to."
regarding, as regards, in regard(s) to, with regard(s) to
In and with regard to, regarding, and as regards are all Standard, synonymous prepositions, slightly longer and more varied than but meaning much the same as about and concerning: I spoke to him regarding [as regards, in regard to, with regard to] his future. With regards to is Nonstandard and frequently functions as a shibboleth, although it can be Standard and idiomatic in complimentary closes to letters: With [my] regards to your family…. In regards to, however, is both Substandard and Vulgar, although it appears unfortunately often in the spoken language of some people who otherwise use Standard. It never appears in Edited English."
Also: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regard "Idioms: as regards Concerning. in/with regard to With respect to. ... Usage Note: Regard is traditionally used in the singular in the phrase in regard (not in regards) to. Regarding and as regards are also standard in the sense "with reference to." In the same sense with respect to is acceptable, but respecting is not. · Respects is sometimes considered preferable to regards in the sense of "particulars": In some respects (not regards) the books are alike."
So, it appears that I was wrong to hear "in regard to" as being incorrect, but right to hear "in regards to" as incorrect. The reason seems to be that "as regards" is a preposition formed from the verb, while "in regard" is an idiom formed from the noun.
Does the fact that millions of people use "in regards to" make it an acceptable evolution of the language? I don't believe that it does, any more than a greengrocer's apostrophe or misspelling of potatoes and tomatoes as 'potatos' (4,120,000 Google hits, 1,110,000 from the UK) and 'tomatos' (4,600,000 and 984,000)" become right by frequency of misspellings.
This fascinating discussion is getting off-topic, please consider starting a separate forum thread for this, and let's leave it here for this question, shall we, please?
I didn't think it was targeted at me, I just chose to respond to it. The purpose of the question is relevant here I'm afraid, prescriptivism is still tolerated far more in professional contexts/writing. It is less tolerated in colloquial/spoken/non-professional contexts. My point is that if it was for translation, then I understand the need to "tow the line" and conform to what prescriptivists demand. For anything else, especially in more casual usage then you can be free and use descriptive language. As for "twitterese": if twitterese becomes ubiquitous enough, then it will eventually become accepted usage. (Although maybe not in all contexts or purposes - or maybe so - only time will tell). Also, the fact that the asker chooses to make the question Non-Pro and phrase it in a way which makes it sound like professional use is not being invoked here, then it is not unreasonable to believe non-professional use is intended.
mediamatrix (X)
@Ty
13:06 Nov 3, 2011
If my comment under BDF's answer has been targetted at you, I would have done you the courtesy of referring to you by name. If the 'some folks' hat doesn't fit, no-one is forcing you to wear it. The 'purpose of the question' is neither here nor there, and assumptions in that respect certainly don't entitle us to infer that Asker has in mind '(a) more generic use' rather than a 'professional purpose'. Indeed, the question refers to "almost any field or situation, business or casual" - none of which specifically suggests (or, indeed, excludes) colloquial or grammatically-incorrect useage.
Mediamatrix, why do you assume "regardless of context or purpose". I never stated this anywhere. And as I have already said, this question doesn't appear to be for professional purposes. It appears to be for more generic usage, both in the fact that it is a non-pro question and that the asker's language suggests a more colloquial angle.
"Incidentally, it is incorrect to state that "Latin is now French, Spanish, Italian". Italian, French and Spanish all derive from mixtures of Latin and other languages, some of which were related to Latin. Spanish, in particular, has Germanic origins too."
It's not incorrect, it's linguistically accepted that the Romance languages share Latin as the common ancestor. What you are talking about is language contact, which certainly affected the evolution of the different branches that once were mostly Latin based. Spanish also has its fair share of Arabic due to Moorish occupation, but this doesn't detract from the fact that Spanish at its heart, is Latinate. Anymore than the fact that English, despite being flooded by language contact, is essentially Germanic.
Spelling is PART of grammar (orthography is grammar as much as syntax or semantics), so it can be classified as a spelling mistake too. You can cling to prescriptivism as is your right, but you must realize it's futile. What about American spelling? This occured after most of the standardisation of British English, it didn't stop them from going haywire and changing things drastically to be more phonetic. American spelling is considered correct. So will new spellings that are emerging now and that will emerge in the future if they catch on or serve a purpose (more phonetic for example). This doesn't endanger communication, this is an old wives' tale/classic argument of the prescriptivists, that all communication will be at risk if spelling or language is used more freely and descriptively. Experience and evidence has shown this does not happen. Additionally, why are you presuming this is for translation? Firstly, the question is Non-Pro, secondly the wording of the question "people seem to use...a lot" suggests the asker is using colloquial English she has heard/come across as a base for inquiry and is asking a more generic question about usage.
Misuse of an apostrophe is a grammatical mistake, not a spelling mistake or a simple homophone that can eventually become accepted as correct. I make no apology for thinking that there is a need for limits and rules of grammar. Rules of grammar enable us to communicate clearly, unambiguously and with precision. The rules may vary according to context and register and are different for spoken and written language. Translators who don't understand this risk providing their clients with poor quality work.
Incidentally, it is incorrect to state that "Latin is now French, Spanish, Italian". Italian, French and Spanish all derive from mixtures of Latin and other languages, some of which were related to Latin. Spanish, in particular, has Germanic origins too. Latin was just one of a number of related (and probably some unrelated) languages used in Italy during the Roman empire; when the empire crumbled, Latin lost its dominance.
Just to address the spelling issue (which I believe is separate from the issue at hand). Whatever out personal inclinations are toward things such as "who's turn is it/baked potato's with beans" the fact is that even spelling is not immune to the forces of language change. The apostrophe least of all. Some councils have even took the decision to remove apostrophes from public signs. So it is not so far fetched that the homphones "who's" for "whose" now will one day become homonyms as "who's". Standardised spelling can only do so much to slow the progression of language change, but it cannot stop it. Today's homophones may well be tomorrow's homonyms.
"language evolves but within limits" - but natural language evolution doesn't recognize limits. This is the very essence of language change. It's the reason Latin is now French, Spanish, Italian etc. All efforts at attempting to limit language change fail, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
The examples you use are homophones (whose/who's, potato's/potatoes). This is a natural breeding ground for confusion and spelling "mistakes" (-according to standardised spelling). This is something quite different from an expansion of "in regard to" to "in regards to", the latter acting like a neologism. This isn't a spelling mistake, it's a new addition to the language. They are different issues.
Jenni - but this issue goes to the very heart of the asker's question: "it doesn't sound like correct language as i learned it". The asker needs to be made aware that if you learn English and only obey prescriptive grammar rules, your English output will not only sound stilted (to say the least) but you'll be walking around in a constant state of confusion as to why nobody else is obeying them either (hence the existence of this question). Prescriptively, you can call this usage "wrong", but descriptively, you cannot. And linguistics as a scientific discipline is favouring descriptivism more and more. In addition, if the asker in question goes around telling native speakers that they are "wrong" because they don't subscribe to antiquated Victorian beliefs about the superiority of Latin or whatever, then this isn't the best way to win friends and influence people.
I think you're being too prescriptive. You are clinging to prescriptive ideas about "right" and "wrong". You also seem to be confusing standardised spelling and neologisms to the language. Next you'll be claiming that it's barbaric to end a sentence with a preposition. The fact is that language changes, even spelling. Leaving aside spelling for the moment, the fact that MILLIONS of native speakers use a phrase definitely makes it a part of the language, whether you like it aesthetically or not. The word formation processes behind it are interesting, but do not necessarily add weight to your argument either. Clearly this is not some fringe usage, used only by a handful of native speakers or confused non-native speakers. To deny its place in the language is to bury your head in the sand about the realities of language variation and change.
mediamatrix (X)
@Morgan
00:36 Nov 3, 2011
You've stated your opinion. What is your question?
Automatic update in 00:
Answers
7 hrs confidence:
Both are used, the question of incorrectness see explanation
Explanation: "with/in regard to..." means "about" or "concerning". "as regards".......... means much the same thing. "...regarding".........is another option.
As for the question of "in regards to being "incorrect". The question of whether something is "incorrect" in a language is whether native speakers say it or not.
Using Google as a corpus: "in regards to" = UK: 14,400,000 (US 111,000,000) "in regard to" =UK: 48,900,000 (US 57,200,000)
Predictably, there's the usual inverse UK/US usage but it's clear from both, that a sizeable chunk of native speakers are saying "in regards to", therefore descriptively, you cannot call it incorrect.
Ty Kendall United Kingdom Local time: 17:31 Native speaker of: English
Explanation: This question sent me scuttling to my Collins dictionary, because "**in** regard(s) to" sounds so wrong to me. I believed that '**with** regard to' or 'as regards' were the correct forms.
According to Collins: "VERB ... as regards (preposition) in respect of; concerning ... NOUN ... reference, relation or connection with regard to or in regard to."
regarding, as regards, in regard(s) to, with regard(s) to
In and with regard to, regarding, and as regards are all Standard, synonymous prepositions, slightly longer and more varied than but meaning much the same as about and concerning: I spoke to him regarding [as regards, in regard to, with regard to] his future. With regards to is Nonstandard and frequently functions as a shibboleth, although it can be Standard and idiomatic in complimentary closes to letters: With [my] regards to your family…. In regards to, however, is both Substandard and Vulgar, although it appears unfortunately often in the spoken language of some people who otherwise use Standard. It never appears in Edited English."
Also: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regard "Idioms: as regards Concerning. in/with regard to With respect to. ... Usage Note: Regard is traditionally used in the singular in the phrase in regard (not in regards) to. Regarding and as regards are also standard in the sense "with reference to." In the same sense with respect to is acceptable, but respecting is not. · Respects is sometimes considered preferable to regards in the sense of "particulars": In some respects (not regards) the books are alike."
So, it appears that I was wrong to hear "in regard to" as being incorrect, but right to hear "in regards to" as incorrect. The reason seems to be that "as regards" is a preposition formed from the verb, while "in regard" is an idiom formed from the noun.
Does the fact that millions of people use "in regards to" make it an acceptable evolution of the language? I don't believe that it does, any more than a greengrocer's apostrophe or misspelling of potatoes and tomatoes as 'potatos' (4,120,000 Google hits, 1,110,000 from the UK) and 'tomatos' (4,600,000 and 984,000)" become right by frequency of misspellings.
B D Finch France Local time: 18:31 Works in field Native speaker of: English PRO pts in category: 8
Grading comment
First validated answer (validated by peer agreement)
peer agreement (net): +2