Since "regardLESS" means "WITHOUT regard" (ie "no matter what"), then "IRregardless" must mean "WITH regard" (ie "if that's okay").
HUSBAND: I'm going bowling with the guys tonight.
WIFE: No you're not; it's my mother's birthday; we're taking her out to dinner tonight.
HUSBAND: Well, I'm going bowling IRREGARDLESS.
WIFE: No! You will do what I say, or you won't get any for a month!
HUSBAND: What should I wear?
WIFE: No you're not; it's my mother's birthday; we're taking her out to dinner tonight.
HUSBAND: Well, I'm going bowling IRREGARDLESS.
WIFE: No! You will do what I say, or you won't get any for a month!
HUSBAND: What should I wear?
by Shelly Bozdog December 21, 2006
A word contradicting itself, though it never existed prior to 20th-century individuals who began to use it to appear sophisticated, or otherwise literate. The term "regardless," a real word, remains lacking and unknown to such sophisticates.
Teacher: 'Irregardless' is not a word. So, Johnny, please use 'regardless' in a sentence correctly.
Johnny: I fucked datt bitch irregardlessly. There, I used regardless in a sentence. Now, do I get an A?
Johnny: I fucked datt bitch irregardlessly. There, I used regardless in a sentence. Now, do I get an A?
by r.s.Reeves April 14, 2008
"Irregardless" is shown to have a definition . . . and it is one word . . . "REGARDLESS"!!! Therefore, the word "irregardless", if used, only shows ones ignorance of the word . . . regardless of their IQ or over-all knowledge ! ! !
There is NO sentence where the word 'irregardless' should be used . . . therefore there is no example to place here ! ! !
by John Kink July 16, 2017
A word created by ignorant pricks who couldn't manage the time to learn the English language. Suspected to originate around the early 1900s on Angel Island, where many Asian immigrants lacked proper English.
Irregardless means exactly the same thing as regardless, regardless of its negativity.
See Regardless
Irregardless means exactly the same thing as regardless, regardless of its negativity.
See Regardless
by Ready-Liver May 7, 2009
A double negative that while technically a word, is nearly always being incorrectly used instead of regardless. The people using this are usually pompous assholes who usually double down on irregardless being the correct word to use and are usually using it at the end of an email to be a passive aggressive shitheel.
Debbie: “Irregardless of what was said during that meeting I still need you to send me an up to date TPS report.”
John: “The correct word is regardless, and you can shove that TPS report up your ass.”
John: “The correct word is regardless, and you can shove that TPS report up your ass.”
by Delicious Hamboning January 29, 2020
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
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