Off topic: In defense of 'irregardless'

Irregardless of the topic of this post, here is a photo of Oscar Gamble.

(Credit: Baseball-Fever.com)

In a post I wrote a couple of weeks ago about overpriced Halo USB drives, I used the word "irregardless." And as these TalkBack posts show, it wasn't a very popular decision.

For example, one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.

In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.

But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.

1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.

2. Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.

3. Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.

4. It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.

5. It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris, roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.

6. If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.

So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

[dparial]

Defend it all the way

I agree, use the word. I'll pass it on in my office :oD

[evildonald]

You tell them!

There is ONE type of comment I hate more than the 'wow' and 'lol' comments and those are the comments correcting the grammar of the author of the article.

If you are one of those people, then you must be very smart! Go join MENSA and then hang the certificate around your neck so everyone can see how smart you are. Obviously you feel a need to prove it. Perhaps then you can stop correcting grammar in web articles and annoying the rest of us. The 'lol' people are better than you.

[Adimus28]

Umm ur not any better then those people. Although yes some are just trying to show that they are smarter, others are actually trying to help you become smarter. The "rules" in english are there to allow for a standardized understanding of any written text. Using things that don't follow the rules just for the sake of it is counter productive. So thanks for making the world a more confusing place.

[icanc4]

A word Bush would use

The very source you use to defend the word says not to use it? That seems incredibly (i.e. lacking credibility) selective. That kind of documentary evidence in favour of an argument got the US into war in Iraq.

Dictionaries are obliged to record words if they enter the language through common usage, but that doesn't mean they're correct or elegant. Let me axe you this: just because you hear it on the street, is it okay to put it in print?

[chaimperachya]

Read the dictionary again!

Irregardless is certainly NOT an acceptable word. Check Merriam-Webster again - it says "Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead." According to Strunk & White, "[When people use "irregardless",] the error results from failure to see the negative in -less and from a desire to get it in as a prefix, suggested by such words as irregular, irresponsible, and perhaps especially, irrespective."

[U. Tripps]

To which population do you wish to conform?

Use it and conform to ignorant common usage. Or don't use it, and conform to the demands of the educated person.

You don't get to be an individual on this one, no matter what you choose. Your column is funny, though.

[dwfitz]

Enough Stupid People...

So by this logic, if enough stupid people, in their ignorance, make up a new word that is nonsense, then the rest of the world must adopt the resulting atrocity of English?!?! This man will not join. However, I do encourage you to keep on identifying yourself with that group of people. By the way, add this one to your repertoire; orientated instead of oriented. If you want so very much to sound uneducated, if not backwards, you will also want to add "tated" to a group of "ted" words. Keep going, I embrace your desire to write and speak within a lower class of education.

[Bishma]

Unfortunately, in a sense, it does.

Some very stupid words become parts of the language. The worst example I can think of is when Oxford recently added "celebutante" to the dictionary. We don't have to use it, but it's there.

[chasing]

Yes, actually

That's exactly the way a language works, unless it's a dead language, which English isn't.

[Montmc]

Irredunant

I think most of your rules are irregurgitations of the same reasons.

[SlanderPanic]

Re: A Word Bush Would Use

HURF BURF BUSH IZ STOOPID
IM BEIN OREGANUL ON TEH INTERTRUCK LOWLZ

(And yes, I've seen that "Intelligence as the dump stat" motivator 900,000 times.)

[gth740k]

See Also:

Also:

inflammable = flammable

Good day.

[dwfitz]

Tated Too!

By the way, add this one to your repertoire; orientated instead of oriented. If you want so very much to sound uneducated, if not backwards, you will also want to add "tated" to a group of "ted" words. Keep going, I embrace your desire to write and speak within a lower class of education.

[chasing]

It's a word, all right

There is no such thing as "official" English - so long as a word (any word, even one you invent yourself, no matter how stupid) gets picked up and used by people, it will end up in a dictionary (which records usage, and isn't a rulebook FOR usage). So if people use irregardless, then there you go, it's a word - most especially if, by using it, people know what you mean (that's the point of language, after all - to communicate ideas). It really doesn't matter if it's a "double negative" - this is language, not mathematics, and while the "double negative" convention is widely used nowadays, it hasn't always been, and still isn't in other languages. So use irregardless. We knew what you meant. And the whiners among us apparently just don't know how the English language REALLY works.

[dabruro]

did you actually READ the Merriam-Webster entry?!?

It says the word is "nonstandard" (nonstandard:regardless which means it is a *nonstandard* form of regardless).

Also "Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

So Merriam Webster is telling us it's not standard, not nearly generally accepted, and is telling us to use "regardless" instead.

How much clearer could they be??

Of course eventually it may become generally accepted, like many grammatically illogical variations have in the past, and then your arguments would hold water. But in the meantime we can defer to logic and convention, especially in formal writing.

[strokinthelovemuffin]

Irregardless Cafe--Raleigh, NC

Stoopid name, great food and atmosphere!

[soccer18]

I wish I had your job

Not even kidding. To write a whole article on the use of regardless vs. irregardless (I agree, irregardless totally wins) is pretty much amazing.

[gs6456]

what everrrrrrrrr!

The English language is a constantly evolving creature. Go back a few hundred years or so and you would be suprised by how different it sounds. All of the words in English are combinations and variations of words from the older languages, meaning it is all made up. And as a matter of fact, so are all languages. Language is just commonly agreed upon sounds with commonly agreed upon meanings attached.

Get over yourselves. Irregardless is a word irregardless of what you stuffy people think.

[DENOBIN]

Everyone uses irregardeless anymore... <arrgh!>

Add this one to the ist of aggravations; using 'anymore' in a positive rather than in a negative context.
Correct: "No one does that anymore."
Arrgh: "We always go there anymore."

In agreement that words made up via ignorance can be added to the lexicon, I offfer the example of the word 'Normalcy'.
Please use 'Normality'

[mayhakjm]

Irregardlessly Written

I like the fact that this post was irregardlessly written (definition 2).

[InterNick]

Should Not Be a Word

I find this article quite humorous (especially the Chuck Norris reference), but strongly disagree with those who say 'irregardless' *should* be a word. However, I understand that it may very well become accepted as a word in the English language due to frequent (mis)use.

Those who defend its use today must admit that at some time in the past, it was not an accepted word by their popular use criteria. People who initially used this word were wrong to do so, because even by popular use criteria, it was not a word then. Thus 'irregardless' was born out of mistakes perpetuated by the gramatically naive.

If a term is popularly used and understood to have a certain meaning, then I would consider it a word. Has 'irregardless' reached that arbritary measure of popular understanding? Perhaps. But that does not acquit the host of people who (mis)used the word before it reached popular acceptance. And it most certainly does not mean that it is beneficial to the English language. On the contrary, I would suggest that it merely adds to the confusion.

Considering these arguments and the fact that 'regardless' possesses the same meaning, I will continue to choose 'regardless' and promote its use. That is, 'regardless' *should* be a word, and 'irregardless' *should not* be a word. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that 'irregardless' is here to stay.

[acedtect]

Inflammable is slightly different

Inflammable is its own kick-ass word because it is the conjunction of inflame with the suffix -able. So the word means literally to be able to inflame. However it can also be read as the prefix in- combined with flammable, which could be read as not flammable as in inpenetrable meaning not able to be penetrated.

If irregardless worked as inflammable, it could also be read tomean the suffix -less on the word irregard. However, to my knowledge irregard is nota word, so irregardless fails where inflammable succeeds, and I support your calling attention to this Jackie Chan of words.

[b_baggins]

According to the Oxford dictionary

irregardless is probably a combination of irrespective and regardless, so it has a similar etymology.

[boopiejones]

woo hoo!!!!

i have an awesome screen name!

i like your defense of the "word" but i still think "irregardless" is not a word, irregardless of what websters dictionary says ;) if you really want to emphasize how regardless something is, just shout: "REGARDLESS!!!"