I enjoyed the Merriam-Webster Online definition of the word.
Please note my bolding to the above.
It is a word, but please just use regardless instead, sums it up nicely.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=VunderBob]
This thread is just stupid.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
A lady on “Judge Judy” the other day said “In regeneration to that matter…”
I don’t think Judge Judy was impressed.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
Ain’t that the truth.
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.
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
meh, I could care less.
[/QUOTE]
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!
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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…
[QUOTE=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…
[/QUOTE]
