PeterF
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2022
- Member Type
- Interested in Language
- Native Language
- English
- Home Country
- UK
- Current Location
- England
I've just come across a word I never even knew existed: "irreparable". Question is, is it worth worrying about the very subtle distinction in usage between irrepairable and irreparable? As far as I can make out, irreparable would better used to refer to something intangible: "This lawsuit will cause his reputation irreparable harm." whereas irrepairable would be better used to refer to tangible things: "Sorry, mate, your gas boiler's irrepairable."
That's a very, very, very, very, very nuanced difference in usage, so is it worth making a distinction between the two words at all, other than to say don't use irrepairable and irreparable interchangeably in the same body of writing when referring to the same thing or similar things? Personally, I think the distinction is so slight that irreparable should be considered a spelling error of irrepairable and be formally stricken from the English language, never to raise its ugly head again, especially because, in order to actually define irreparable the phrase "not able to be repaired" has to be used.
This is one of those instances where English overcomplicates itself needlessly, imo, because you know what's happened here, don't you? Some learned and very well respected person a while back has gone and spelled irrepairable "irreparable" multiple times in some very formal document to be peer reviewed or something, and rather than suggest that this "learned" person is actually a poor speller the spineless folks in his or her inner circle have gone and accepted irreparable as an alternative spelling, and that acceptance has gradually become global. That's why "spinal chord" is now considered acceptable instead of "spinal cord" -- probably, a very well respected doctor or researcher has mixed up cord with chord and now we have spinal chord floating around in medical papers, journals, etc.
Thanks
Peter
That's a very, very, very, very, very nuanced difference in usage, so is it worth making a distinction between the two words at all, other than to say don't use irrepairable and irreparable interchangeably in the same body of writing when referring to the same thing or similar things? Personally, I think the distinction is so slight that irreparable should be considered a spelling error of irrepairable and be formally stricken from the English language, never to raise its ugly head again, especially because, in order to actually define irreparable the phrase "not able to be repaired" has to be used.
This is one of those instances where English overcomplicates itself needlessly, imo, because you know what's happened here, don't you? Some learned and very well respected person a while back has gone and spelled irrepairable "irreparable" multiple times in some very formal document to be peer reviewed or something, and rather than suggest that this "learned" person is actually a poor speller the spineless folks in his or her inner circle have gone and accepted irreparable as an alternative spelling, and that acceptance has gradually become global. That's why "spinal chord" is now considered acceptable instead of "spinal cord" -- probably, a very well respected doctor or researcher has mixed up cord with chord and now we have spinal chord floating around in medical papers, journals, etc.
Thanks
Peter