# Irregardless **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 8, 2012, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477 "2012-06-08T07:46:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![conway](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ec9cab/32.png) [@conway](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/conway)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/21 "2012-06-08T17:35:57Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Not exactly like. Something can be inflamed, but it can’t be irregarded. Hmmm, I choose to disirregard this statement. ---
**Author:** ![Lukeinva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lukeinva/32/17872_2.png) [@Lukeinva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lukeinva)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/22 "2012-06-08T17:46:05Z")
Even if it’s not a legit word when someone says it you know what they mean. Life it too short to spend it correcting bad grammar. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/23 "2012-06-08T17:51:39Z")
> [@Lukeinva](#): > > Even if it’s not a legit word when someone says it you know what they mean. Life it too short to spend it correcting bad grammar. “Life **is** …” ---
**Author:** ![Ambivalid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a5b964/32.png) [@Ambivalid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ambivalid)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/24 "2012-06-08T18:03:59Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > “Life **is** …” You know what they meant. Big meanie. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/25 "2012-06-08T19:11:32Z")
> [@Ambivalid](#): > > You know what they meant. He or she. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/26 "2012-06-08T19:21:32Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > You mean, it should be incromulent. Ircromulent. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/27 "2012-06-08T19:26:58Z")
> [@Quasimodem](#): > > Here’s another one: _in_visible, versus _un_visible. Shouldn’t there be that second word? > If something is unvisible, it means it’s there but not seen. If invisible, then no one _realizes_ something is there, right? > > Thanks > > Q I’d say that “unvisible” as a hypothetical word would refer to something that has become invisible – that is, something that is not visible that once was. The “un-” prefix is often a reversing prefix – i.e. “undo”. ETA: Actually, “become unvisible” doesn’t work then, though I feel like “unvisible” should be a verb… ---
**Author:** ![Eurograff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/df705f/32.png) [@Eurograff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eurograff)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/28 "2012-06-08T23:03:30Z")
> [@Quasimodem](#): > > Here’s another one: _in_visible, versus _un_visible. Shouldn’t there be that second word? > If something is unvisible, it means it’s there but not seen. If invisible, then no one _realizes_ something is there, right? Both negation prefixes, _in-_ and _un-_, mean mainly the same in English. It’s just so that _un-_ is the Germanic and _in-_ the Romance prefix (and _an-_ the Greek one). Since both words _visible_ and _invisible_ were directly borrowed from French to English and ultimately come from Latin, the word _invisible_ makes sense in any meaning that is opposite to _visible_. Of course, _un-_ is a productive prefix, so you can make new words with it at will. But still, coining a new word like unvisible just doesn’t seem terribly useful, especially as words like _unseen_, _unapparent_ or _imperceptible_ already exist. ---
**Author:** ![Grateful-UnDead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ccd318/32.png) [@Grateful-UnDead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grateful-UnDead)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/29 "2012-06-09T00:53:17Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Although “inflammable” is often criticized as having a superfluous prefix, it derives from the verb “inflame”. It is a perfectly good adjective. One could even argue that it’s a better word than “flammable” because there is no such word as “flam” that means “to set on fire.” > > “Irregardless” OTOH is truly redundant because the prefix and the suffix both negate the root word. Just to confuse the issue some more, from my days working as a chemist/chemical engineer: flammable: a material that has a critical flash point of 80 degrees F or less. inflammable: a material with a flash point of more than 140 degrees F. I don’t remember the name applied to those materials between 80F and 140F ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/30 "2012-06-09T01:15:34Z")
This thread is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/31 "2012-06-09T01:17:40Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Wikipedia has an entire article on the word, apparently it may have come from West Indiana as a possible portmanteau of “irrespective” and “regardless”, but nobody knows for sure. I always though that, even without clear evidence, we can assume it must be that. > [@Grateful-UnDead](#): > > Just to confuse the issue some more, from my days working as a chemist/chemical engineer: > > flammable: a material that has a critical flash point of 80 degrees F or less. > > inflammable: a material with a flash point of more than 140 degrees F. > > I don’t remember the name applied to those materials between 80F and 140F Well I’m no fancy chemist/chemical engineer, but I think the over-140-degrees-Fahrenheit substances are _combustible_, and I find the idea that there is any special difference between “inflammable” and “flammable” in chemistry rather dubious. My guess is that both flammable and inflammable apply to the substances with flash points not considered combustible. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/32 "2012-06-09T01:18:57Z")
I thought a cromulent was what the Brits ate for tea. Or is that a strumpet? ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/33 "2012-06-09T01:19:14Z")
> [@Grateful-UnDead](#): > > Just to confuse the issue some more, from my days working as a chemist/chemical engineer: > > flammable: a material that has a critical flash point of 80 degrees F or less. > > inflammable: a material with a flash point of more than 140 degrees F. > > I don’t remember the name applied to those materials between 80F and 140F I always thought “combustible” was any material with a higher flash point. ---
**Author:** ![california\_jobcase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9d8465/32.png) [@california\_jobcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/california_jobcase)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/34 "2012-06-09T01:19:35Z")
Why do Brits orientate when they could just orient? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/35 "2012-06-09T01:22:45Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > I thought a cromulent was what the Brits ate for tea. Or is that a strumpet? Some prefer tarts. ---
**Author:** ![Karen\_Lingel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karen_lingel/32/18649_2.png) [@Karen\_Lingel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karen_Lingel)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/36 "2012-06-09T01:24:52Z")
If y’all don’t mind me tangenting a bit: Why do people think “snuck” is the past tense of “sneak”? There is no precedent: beak -\> beaked creak -\> creaked freak -\> freaked greek -\> greeked leak -\> leaked peek -\> peeked peak -\> peaked reek -\> reeked seek -\> uh, sought. Still. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/37 "2012-06-09T01:26:02Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Some prefer tarts. Nothing like a sweet little tart to start your day, I always say. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/38 "2012-06-09T01:43:45Z")
> [@Karen\_Lingel](#): > > If y’all don’t mind me tangenting a bit: > > Why do people think “snuck” is the past tense of “sneak”? There is no precedent: > beak -\> beaked > creak -\> creaked > freak -\> freaked > greek -\> greeked > leak -\> leaked > peek -\> peeked > peak -\> peaked > reek -\> reeked > seek -\> uh, sought. Still. As you quite rightly point out, there is precedent for “snought”. I support this. ---
**Author:** ![Grateful-UnDead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ccd318/32.png) [@Grateful-UnDead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grateful-UnDead)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/39 "2012-06-09T01:45:39Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > I always though that, even without clear evidence, we can assume it must be that. > > Well I’m no fancy chemist/chemical engineer, but I think the over-140-degrees-Fahrenheit substances are _combustible_, and I find the idea that there is any special difference between “inflammable” and “flammable” in chemistry rather dubious. My guess is that both flammable and inflammable apply to the substances with flash points not considered combustible. From “The Condensed Chemical Dictionary” 8th Edition, page 229: “Combustible: any substance that will burn, regardless of its autoignition point, or whether it is solid, liquid or gas.” and " … logically includes all flammable materials… however… … this term is ignored in official classifications… “, " … where the term “combustible” is restricted to those materials that are comparatively difficult to ignite and that burn relatively slowly.” etc etc So, chemists/engineers know wherefore they speak; the guument, however… ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477/40 "2012-06-09T01:58:16Z")
> [@Grateful-UnDead](#): > > From “The Condensed Chemical Dictionary” 8th Edition, page 229: > > “Combustible: any substance that will burn, regardless of its autoignition point, or whether it is solid, liquid or gas.” and " … logically includes all flammable materials… however… … this term is ignored in official classifications… “, " … where the term “combustible” is restricted to those materials that are comparatively difficult to ignite and that burn relatively slowly.” etc etc > > So, chemists/engineers know wherefore they speak; the guument, however… Well yes, surely anything flammable is by definition combustible in that it can undergo combustion. I suppose my post was just meant to be about the words in situations where they’re distinct classifications. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/irregardless/624477.md?page=3)