Nope. I’m just remarking on the trends I’ve noticed. I am willing to be shown wrong. Have you seen a significant number of usages of “irregardless” to mean anything other than “without regard”? Because I’ve certainly seen a significant number of usages of “irregardless” to mean “without regard”; hence all the gnashing and wailing of teeth.
Just because “ir-” and “-less” are both kinds of negation, and double negation is often different than single negation, doesn’t mean that the language has to work like that in this particular instance. The evidence shows that the language, as used by its speakers, does not work like that in this particular instance. So it goes; no amount of mathematical analysis can demonstrate otherwise. There’s just the cold, hard, empirical facts.
ETA - it would be a struggle to vote for someone who routinely failed at public speaking, but I might be able to do it, if the opponent had failings of a greater magnitude.
Clearly, the word meets condemnation. That can be witnessed in this very thread; no one is so foolish as to claim that it doesn’t.
But at the same time… the word does mean “without regard to” and does not mean the opposite of that, despite having two negating affixes. That is the point which, I believe, legalsnugs was referring to with the cite.
Jeebus H. Shitsicle on a Fuckstick! Can’t you word folk talk anything but goddam SPECIFICS all the fuckin’ time??!?!!
The OP raised a thought-provoking question about our politics, language, and culture. And 2/3 of the thread is taken up with debating the word irregardless for the umpteen thousandth time.
Welcome to the modern age, where even the smart people are getting dumber.
The prefix “in” means “not”. So to say that a word means the same whether or not the prefix “in” is attached is a contradiction. Does “inflammable” mean the same as “flammable”?
In case anyone complains that the prefix “in-” in “inflammable” is etymologically separate from the homophonous negatory prefix “in-”, we also have the simple example from legalsnug’s link: “ravel” means to untangle, and “unravel”… well it also means to untangle, despite the negatory prefix “un-”.
Now, even this example isn’t perfect, because “ravel” can also mean to entangle. But, that also just supports the point: language is messy. Such is the world.
Irregardless of such specifics, my eyes’ literally popped out of their sockets when I viewed the clip. The OP begs the question of why we should evaluate grammar rather than issues. Frankly, I could of cared less.
Oh, and in answer to the OP’s question, whether I vote for them or not would depend on their positions on the issues, not their speaking ability. I tend to think someone who uses incorrect grammar as ignorant or less intelligent than someone who uses correct grammar, depending on the context, but I am much more forgiving if someone is speaking off the cuff. In that case, I can see how people might misspeak and not use correct grammar. However, for something that is scripted, as in the link, I tend to think it’s either ignorance or they’re talking down to their audience (as in “See, I’m one of you.”). Unfortunately, it seems a lot of people think using correct grammar as “putting on airs.”
Did you see/hear that recent “the new healthcare law is good” ad where President Obama makes a telephone call to the woman with cancer? I was all “yay!” about it right up until the operator asks to speak to her and the woman responds, “This is her.” I know it’s unreasonable, but every nerve in my body cringed and the whole ad was ruined for me.
Face it, you people who think speaking incorrectly is perfectly acceptable because the language is “fluid,” people who know better think you’re ignorant.
That is, oddly, proper English. The predicate nominative does not take the objective case.
As for the question in the OP, the real mistake seems to have been skipped by almost everyone. Perhaps you’d do better if you saw what the candidate said written out:
Special Interests have a very strong grip on what happens in the state of California, and the challenges is to have representatives that can fight for the little guy–that can get out there and say, “I’m going to represent everyone in this community, irregardless of what the Special Interests say is the right thing to do.” And, frankly, the Special Interests have tried taking me on. They’ve made threats, and that’s okay, because I don’t scare easily.
While I agree with everyone that such a small mistake, (and a PR one, to boot) would not change how I’d vote in the slightest, I still think it’s really weird to let that type of mistake make it to air. All they’d need is one of those flash cuts to fix it. I did it in two seconds (audio only), and I didn’t even have a track without the music in the background.
Irregardless is not incorrect in her sentence. It’s simply informal English.
Since when do politicians have to use formal English in speeches? That would pretty much disqualify all the populist, folksy people. I’d be more concerned when they’re rambling incoherently a la Palin or any of the other new GOP bimbos.
And I agree with those who say policies, etc. are much more important than one instance of informal language usage.
A strange thing to say, given the position you’re taking. If Indistinguishable is taking the mantle of “arbiter of the English language” for making a claim about whether “irregardless” means the same as “regardless” or not, why aren’t you also taking that mantle for making the same kind of claim?