Irregardless is an illegitimate word, you shitstains! Putting the prefix Ir before the word regardless effectively makes it a double negative; thus the meaning of the word becomes: "without without regard." so instead of the intended meaning, which is without regard, it becomes just the opposite: with regard to!
Irregardless is a non-word that many a tool mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or uneducated writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Irregardless is a non-word that many a tool mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or uneducated writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
"That stupid toolshed of a bartender is always using the non-word irregardless, thinking that he is impressing the ladies with his intelligence! Personally, I think he should just stick to the steroids and shut his pie hole."
by Misty Dawn May 30, 2008
The kind of thing Dubya would say when he means to say "regardless". Its a bastardized version of the word "regardless", with an added superfluous "ir" added at the start. All you have to do is think about it logically to see that its not a grammatically correct word, just a mistake that unfortunetly became popular. You dont have to be a pompous or rude asshole to correct someone, just somebody who thinks its important that they dont compromise the English language to cater for people who cant be arsed to do their English homework.
To be honest, I dont mind people using words like this in normal speech, but I cant stand to see it in print. People like journalists and authors, I believe, have a responsibility to be at least somewhat gramatically correct.
To be honest, I dont mind people using words like this in normal speech, but I cant stand to see it in print. People like journalists and authors, I believe, have a responsibility to be at least somewhat gramatically correct.
1. If you're going to make a living from writing, then please make the effort to use real words instead of words like "Irregardless" and "alot".
Other person: "Alot of words are considered ungrammatical before they are sanctioned."
Me: "Yes, and it's a sad testiment to the quality of education in society when these mistakes are sanctioned!"
Other person: "Alot of words are considered ungrammatical before they are sanctioned."
Me: "Yes, and it's a sad testiment to the quality of education in society when these mistakes are sanctioned!"
by The original Malicious Matt November 8, 2005
by RCMC April 11, 2007
According to certain actual, credible dictionaries (which I cannot name because of potential legal issues), irregardless evolved in the early 20th Century United States from the word "regardless". Frequently those who engage in hypercorrection (yes, that is a word, look it up) say that there is "no such word". However, this is misleading and ignores both the inevitable evolution of the English language as well as the authoritative comments of most English dictionaries, which do in fact recognize it as a valid colloquialism. (Most do so whilst still observing that most people do not consider it proper in "formal" English).
The argument that the word contains a double negative and and is therefore improper ignores countless other commonly used words which do the very same thing; e.g., "debone", "unravel". A similar argument could also be made for the seemingly nonsensical yet true proposition that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.
It also fails to take into consideration that even standardized, "proper" English has very few firm rules, that most rules of proper English have many exceptions, and that formal vocabulary, grammar, spelling, etc. vary from place to place. (Colour/color; 'quotes'/"quotes"; "punctuation inside quotes,"/"punctuation outside quotes", possessive's apostrophe/its lack of apostrophe, while/whilst, and the like.)
Of course, this does not excuse the complete and utter abuse of English by many people today; e.g. "u" for "you", "ur" for "your"/"you're", "i" for "I", "wat" for "what", etc. However, "irregardless" does not fall into this blatantly vulgar category.
The argument that the word contains a double negative and and is therefore improper ignores countless other commonly used words which do the very same thing; e.g., "debone", "unravel". A similar argument could also be made for the seemingly nonsensical yet true proposition that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing.
It also fails to take into consideration that even standardized, "proper" English has very few firm rules, that most rules of proper English have many exceptions, and that formal vocabulary, grammar, spelling, etc. vary from place to place. (Colour/color; 'quotes'/"quotes"; "punctuation inside quotes,"/"punctuation outside quotes", possessive's apostrophe/its lack of apostrophe, while/whilst, and the like.)
Of course, this does not excuse the complete and utter abuse of English by many people today; e.g. "u" for "you", "ur" for "your"/"you're", "i" for "I", "wat" for "what", etc. However, "irregardless" does not fall into this blatantly vulgar category.
I will continue to use this word without shame, irregardless of your misguided attempt to make yourself look smart whilst trying to make me look foolish.
by Res Ipsa April 15, 2008
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
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.
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.
Irregarless of your opinion this is a word.
by Anonymous April 26, 2003
by Sparky D June 8, 2005
by carlton funkbass April 10, 2008