We see in US English a trend towards saying "irregardless of" in place of "regardless of". The trend is discernible on Google Ngram since 1980. Even "educated" writers in US use it. I don't see it at all in UK English. Is "irregardless of" grammatically acceptable anywhere?
4
-
1It's acceptable to the people who use it, just like every other non-standard word. Are you asking if there are any large groups of people who consistently use irregardless in place of, or alongside regardless? My guess would be no, but maybe someone has more information than I do.– JuhaszCommented Mar 12, 2020 at 21:49
-
2Irregardless is not just 'non-standard'; it is a gross error.– Michael HarveyCommented Mar 12, 2020 at 22:51
-
@MichaelHarvey: How many centuries does it take for an error to become language?– Colin FineCommented Apr 13, 2020 at 13:40
-
However many centuries for people of letters to begin incorporating the error as standard usage, I guess.– Michael HarveyCommented Apr 13, 2020 at 14:14
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
It is unfortunate that popular use of an incorrect word will eventually cause it to be added to the lexicon. "Irregardless" is one of those words. Those who believe it means the same thing as "regardless" do not understand the addition of the prefix "ir" as a negation (e.g., irreverent, irresponsible, irregular, etc.). Therefore, irregardless means not without regard or more simply means having regard. As such the two meanings are opposite to one another.
I cannot say whether this misuse is acceptable, only that it seems to be tolerated. However, non-standard designation does not make the word accurate.
-
Why is that "unfortunate"? That's how language changes. Presumably you think it is "unfortunate" that we no longer speak Middle English. Or Old English. Or Proto-Germanic. Or Proto-IndoEuropean. Or whatever came before that. It's not fortunate or unfortunate: it's simply a fact of life. And if many people use "irregardless" to mean the same as "regardless", and are understood (and I believe that is the case) then it is simply false to claim that it does not mean that. Meaning is in how words are used and understood, not in their etymology. Commented Apr 13, 2020 at 13:43
-
@ColinFine ... Dear Colin, why are you frothing? We can disagree without snark. As to your initial question, when I use the word "unfortunate," I mean it is something I wish had not happened. When my students mispronounce a word, I might know what they mean, but I will still correct their diction. Your philosophy toward acceptance of a non-word might suggest that any and all errors should be welcome to expand the language. I just happen to disagree with that tolerance. A living language should expand with creative input, but in my opinion "Ir"regardless is not creative input. Commented Apr 14, 2020 at 18:56
-
1@ColinFine Since you are asking "why" this might be unfortunate: A reason why this particular case is unfortunate is that it goes against logic. Both the prefix "ir-" and the suffix "-less" indicate some form of negation, such that "irregardless" contains a double negation, which lessens an intuitive understanding. I am not saying that language has to be logic, but I do think that going against logic is a perfectly valid reason to call this an unfortunate change.– ZausCommented Oct 24, 2020 at 12:28
From Wiktionary irregardless:
Adjective
irregardless (not comparable)
- (nonstandard, proscribed, sometimes humorous) Irrespective, regardless. [from mid 19th c.]
Usage notes
Although well attested, this word is widely regarded as nonstandard and incorrect. Its use is discouraged by many speakers, who consider it inappropriate in virtually any formal setting.
Google ngrams
As you can see, there's not much difference between British and American usage. Both avoid using "irregardless" in favour of "regardless", and there are a few writers on both sides of the pond who do use "irregardless".
