Irrepairable versus irreparable.

[PeterF]

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

 

[5jj]

Forget irrepairable. Native speakers don't use it: Ngram.

 

[5jj]

That's why "spinal chord" is now considered acceptable instead of "spinal cord"

Not by most of us: Ngram.

 

[probus]

As someone who's been known to read medical journals, I'd be interested to see a scholarly use of "spinal chord". Could or would you provide a citation @PeterF?

 

[PeterF]

As someone who's been known to read medical journals, I'd be interested to see a scholarly use of "spinal chord". Could or would you provide a citation @PeterF?

Hi probus,

Some Remarks upon the Distribution of the Grey Matter in the Spinal Chord, and upon the Relative Proportions of the Anterior and Posterior Segments of the Chord at Different Parts

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Pathological and Practical Researches on the Diseases of the Brain and the Spinal Chord

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Took me about a minute, and that's just Page 1 of 93 of PubMed.

Peter

 

[Tarheel]

One says 1832. The other says 1835. Times change.

 

[probus]

Forget irrepairable. Native speakers don't use it: Ngram.

Yep. I'd say unrepairable or not repairable.

 

[probus]

Time to trot out the old Latin again. In the first great system of taxonomy large groups of organisms were organized into phylums. Those with a spine or at least a spinal cord were placed in the phylum chordata, from the Latin . And in the 1800s all educated people knew Latin.

 

[5jj]

Took me about a minute, and that's just Page 1 of 93 of PubMed.

I tried Pubmed and got 160 spinal chord hits.

But then I did get 241,526 spinal cord hits.

 

[5jj]

I think this is a good place to close this thread.