Irregardless, you drive me batshit.

[What_Exit]

I enjoyed the Merriam-Webster Online definition of the word.

**irregardless **

Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈgärd-ləs\
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : regardless
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Please note my bolding to the above.
It is a word, but please just use regardless instead, sums it up nicely.

@wikipedia

Appearance in reference books
One way to follow the progress of and sentiments toward irregardless is by studying how it is described in references throughout the twentieth century. Webster’s New International Dictionary (2nd. Ed. Unabridged) described the word as an erroneous or humorous form of regardless, and attributed it to the United States. Although irregardless was beginning to make its way into the American lexicon, it still was not universally recognized and was missing completely from Fowler’s Modern English Usage,[3] published in 1965, nor is irregardless mentioned under the entry for regardless therein. In the last twenty-five years, irregardless has become a common entry in dictionaries and usage reference books. It appears in a wide range of dictionaries including: Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged (1961, repr. 2002),[4] The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology (1988), The American Heritage Dictionary (Second College Edition, 1991),[5] Microsoft Encarta College Dictionary (2001), and Webster’s New World College Dictionary (Fourth Edition, 2004).[6]This word was first seen in print in the Gordon family anthology.
Prescriptive vs. descriptive
The approach taken by lexicographers when documenting a word’s uses and limitations can be prescriptive or descriptive. The method used with irregardless is overwhelmingly prescriptive. Much of the criticism comes from the illogical double negative pairing of the prefix (ir-) and suffix (-less), and the argument that irregardless is not, or should not be, a word at all because it lacks the antecedents of a “bona fide nonstandard word.” A counterexample is provided in ain’t, which has an “ancient genealogy,” at which scholars would not dare level such criticisms.

The descriptive approach to “irregardless” is to note that it is considered nonstandard by educated people.

[VunderBob]

This thread is just stupid.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

*Webster’s New International Dictionary (2nd. Ed. Unabridged) described the word as an erroneous or *humorous form ** of regardless, and attributed it to the United States

(Bolding mine.) The correct response would be to chuckle upon hearing the word. Maybe raise one eyebrow as well. :dubious:

[Ponder_Stibbons]

Not long after van Gogt had his little “accident” and was walking down the street, two Dutchmen looked at him in pity.

“That’s a shame,” said the first.
“Yes,” said the second, “that man has no ‘ear regard’, Les.”

Sorry.

[The_Chao_Goes_Mu]

@VunderBob

This thread is just stupid.

Yeah, this thread just is stupid.

“Irregardless” is kind of like “ain’t”, you’ll find it in the dictionary, it technically is a word, but it sounds like hell to most people.

When I was in elementary school, “ain’t” wasn’t in any of the dictionaries we had access to at the school. We were forbidden from using it. By the time we got into middle school, it made the dictionary and most of my teachers, although still despising it, would let us use it in writing if we used it correctly, as a contraction of “am not.” It still sounds like shit.

[VunderBob]

@The Chao Goes Mu

Yeah, this thread just is stupid.

“Irregardless” is kind of like “ain’t”, you’ll find it in the dictionary, it technically is a word, but it sounds like hell to most people.

When I was in elementary school, “ain’t” wasn’t in any of the dictionaries we had access to at the school. We were forbidden from using it. By the time we got into middle school, it made the dictionary and most of my teachers, although still despising it, would let us use it in writing if we used it correctly, as a contraction of “am not.” It still sounds like shit.

Chao, I’m agreeing with you. ‘Just’ drives me batshit. Sarcasm was intended.

I use ain’t for colloquial effect, but not in situations where proper speech is required.

[The_Chao_Goes_Mu]

@VunderBob

Chao, I’m agreeing with you. ‘Just’ drives me batshit. Sarcasm was intended.

I use ain’t for colloquial effect, but not in situations where proper speech is required.

Oh, no. I got your sarcasm and was playing along. Sorry for the confusion.

[tdn]

@PunditLisa

A lady on “Judge Judy” the other day said “In regeneration to that matter…”

I don’t think Judge Judy was impressed.

The old bitty has gone soft on us.

Back in the old days, if someone said “So I borrowed it to him” or “I lent it from her”, JJ would transform into Attila the Hun (wicked ugly version) and pluck the heart out of the hapless litigant.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Er… supposing it IS a word, as M-W seems to think, shouldn’t it be the antonym of regardless?

[Northern_Piper]

meh, I could care less.

[scout1222]

DON’T YOU EVEN START WITH THAT, NORTHERN PIPER

[Bosstone]

@The Chao Goes Mu

When I was in elementary school, “ain’t” wasn’t in any of the dictionaries we had access to at the school. We were forbidden from using it. By the time we got into middle school, it made the dictionary and most of my teachers, although still despising it, would let us use it in writing if we used it correctly, as a contraction of “am not.” It still sounds like shit.

Ain’t that the truth.

[Lightray]

@Really Not All That Bright

Er… supposing it IS a word, as M-W seems to think, shouldn’t it be the antonym of regardless?

Hey, after you’re done sorting out regardless v. irregardless, could you please have a go at flammable v. inflammable? kthx.

[aldiboronti]

As What Exit? has shown, this word has been around a good while.

Here’s the OED entry with cites:

irregardless, a. and adv.

Chiefly N. Amer.

In non-standard or humorous use: regardless.
1912 in WENTWORTH Amer. Dial. Dict. 1923 Lit. Digest 17 Feb. 76 Is there such a word as irregardless in the English language? 1934 in WEBSTER (labelled Erron. or Humorous, U.S.). 1938 I. KUHN Assigned to Adventure xxx. 310, I made a grand entrance and suffered immediate and complete obliteration, except on the pay-roll, which functioned automatically to present me with a three-figure cheque every week, ‘irregardless’, as Hollywood says. 1939 C. MORLEY Kitty Foyle xxvii. 267 But she can take things in her stride, irregardless what’s happened. 1955 Publ. Amer. Dial. Soc. XXIV. 19, I don’t think like other people do and irregardless of how much or how little dope would cost me [etc.]. 1970 Current Trends in Linguistics X. 590 She tells the pastor that he should please quit using the word ‘irregardless’ in his sermons as there is no such word. 1971 M. MCSHANE Man who left Well Enough iv. 96 The sun poured down on Purity irregardless of the fact that it received no welcome.

[Indistinguishable]

The people who actually use the word “irregardless” have a perfect handle on its meaning. It’s those who say it must be defined as the opposite of “regardless” who lack (or pretend to lack) comprehension of the language.

[John_Mace]

@Northern Piper

meh, I could care less.

Damn. Beat me to it.

The thing about “irregardless” is that some people seem to think they are showing how educumated they are by using it. It’s like people who misuse “whom”-- my feeling is that “who” is so commonly used for both words that if you don’t know how to use “whom” correctly, just use “who”. You know whom you are out there, too!

[Key_Lime_Guy]

The best part of this thread is that, while complaining about the proper use of language, (at least) two posters couldn’t discern when the other was being sarcastic and knowingly responding with more sarcasm. Priceless.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Indistinguishable

The people who actually use the word “irregardless” have a perfect handle on its meaning. It’s those who say it must be defined as the opposite of “regardless” who lack (or pretend to lack) comprehension of the language.

I don’t have a problem with it meaning the same thing as “regardless” - see Lightray’s post re flammable/inflammable further up.

I just don’t see the point; why on earth would you use it as opposed to regardless? “Inflammable” is the more conventional term in some places, but I bet you’d be hard-pressed to find anywhere on earth where “irregardless” is the more common usage…

[The_Chao_Goes_Mu]

@Really Not All That Bright

I don’t have a problem with it meaning the same thing as “regardless” - see Lightray’s post re flammable/inflammable further up.

I just don’t see the point; why on earth would you use it as opposed to regardless? “Inflammable” is the more conventional term in some places, but I bet you’d be hard-pressed to find anywhere on earth where “irregardless” is the more common usage…

That begs the question.

D & R

[Ellen_Cherry]

I’m with you two. Northern Piper and myself could care less.