Alert for DU University Grammarians!

[mfcorey1]

‘Irregardless’ is too a word; you just don’t understand dictionaries | COMMENTARY

While off for the holiday yesterday, I witnessed a spasm of dictionary panic online, after someone discovered that Merriam-Webster includes irregardless in its dictionaries.

Responses varied: [Gasp] [Clutch pearls] [Recline on chaise longue, applying cold cloths to forehead], accompanied by sentiments such as “Not a word,” “English is Over,” and “The worrrrrld is coming to an end.”

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/columnists/mcintyre/bs-ed-mcintyre-20200704-tniwdnrhnjdp3dsijd6327l7zm-story.html

[Wounded Bear]

1. Yes, it means "regardless"...

It's kind of like flammable and inflammable. Sound like they should be antonyms, but they're not.

[CTyankee]

6. As a kid, I once used "irregardless" and my father sternly informed me that it was NOT A WORD

and informed me further that I should use the term "regardless" in the future. Boy, I sure learned that lesson. I think he thought it showed a lack of proper education and he would have none of it!

[lagomorph777]

8. "Irregardless" and "inflammable" have no reason to exist, unless as antonyms.

But of course, "irregardless" would then be a synonym of "regarding" and "inflammable" would be a synonym of "non-flammable."

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Inflammable Makes Sense, To A Degree

The "in-" syllable is more like "capable of being", like intense or influence. It's not like the negation in incompetent

So, capable of being flammable, and flammable are pretty much the same thing.

It " ir-" on regardless feels like a negation. As in irrespective.

[lagomorph777]

26. inordinate, insane, inapplicable, etc all use "in" the same way.

Other examples, such as interest, intense, influence, inspect, don't really use it as a prefix and there's no commonality.

Negation of regardless would be "regardful" so closest real word is "regarding" or "having to do with"

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. 'inflamare' is a Latin verb - to inflame

with the 'in-' prefix in the English version having the same meaning as in "inspire", "infer", "involve", "inscribe", or, with the modification that before an 'l' 'in-' changes to 'il-', "illuminate". The first recorded written use of "inflammable" in English was in 1605; the first use of "flammable" was 1813.

Yes, it is a prefix in "inspect", "influence" and "intense". Only in "interest" is it not a prefix.

[lagomorph777]

41. Thanks Muriel!

Interesting stuff!

[ProfessorGAC]

37. We Agree, In Part

The "in" in intense is connoting "capable of causing tension". Inflammable is "capable of catching fire". Influence is "capable of creating flow". Etc.
So, it's not a negation, and there is context to the first syllable.
Those in your title are clearly connoting the opposite of what follows it.
Also agree on " regardful". That's why "irregardless" is unnecessary. There's already an exact word in use for the concept.

[lagomorph777]

40. Thanks Professor!

I've learned a lot here!

[hlthe2b]

2. Gave up on Merriam Webster after they included GWBush*' s mangled pronunciation of "nuclear"

[lagomorph777]

9. Are you kidding me? Oh that's crap.

I won't bother with that as a source any more.

[NightWatcher]

3. The word "gullible" is similar to that except its not in the dictionary

[Squinch]

4. Merriam-Webster has sold out! Irregardless is NOT a word!

[lagomorph777]

10. +1 A dictionary is supposed to show good usage, not pander to idiots.

[Squinch]

11. I'm smiling, though, at the fact that this REALLY DOES bug me! I am that person.

And kind of proud of it.

[lagomorph777]

13. Me too.

[Ms. Toad]

15. Back before computers,

I had a friend who was an editor for Merriam-Webster. She spent most meetings we attended together documenting word use by cutting out print references for words currently not in the dictionary, and gluing them to notecards. When a stack reached a certain thickness, it was considered for inclusion in the next edition.

So If enough idiots use a word in a similar fashion, it is likely to end up in the next version of the dictionary.

[lagomorph777]

17. I wonder how much of an "gatekeeper" a given publisher is for new words...

...versus merely reflecting what is.

[Ms. Toad]

22. For Merriam Webster

it is a two step process.

The first is a reflection of what is (now thick is the stack of notecards - my recollection was it needed to be about an inch thick).

The second is more nuanced - definining the word based on the context in which it was used.

[sl8]

25. What about the other dictionaries?

[...]

Let’s look at wicked Merriam-Webster, which had the temerity to include this word. Someone inquired whether any other dictionary does so. I reach over to the shelf adjacent to my desk and find irregardless in the American Heritage Dictionary, the New Oxford American Dictionary, the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster’s New World College Dictionary. All of them, like Merriam-Webster, label the word as “nonstandard” or “informal.”

[...]

[Squinch]

30. All of 'em!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. Language evolves? Unpossible!

[Wounded Bear]

12. Well, if you eliminate that...

[MineralMan]

7. Of course it's a word. Any word that is used in speech or writing

is a word. However, it's a stupid word that simple means the same as "regardless." It's an unnecessary word. That doesn't mean it isn't a word, though.

It's not a word I ever use, though. It is unnecessary.

[Mr. Ected]

14. Just say "irrespective" rather than "irregardless"

If you're irritated with irrational irredundancies.

[abqtommy]

16. I was told when I was in school (after years of learning and following "the rules of grammar")

that THERE ARE NO RULES. That really put the whole matter into perspectivication for me!

[eppur_se_muova]

18. Dictionaries reflect currently accepted practices, not absolute truths.

Their contents are compiled by empirical observation, not by logical deduction from theoretically sound axioms.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. Series! I could care less!

More words is better than less words.

[Brainfodder]

20. Az lung az eye kan jet mi point acrus, its ul g00t?

[Happy Hoosier]

23. Meh.

It's a shitty, sloppy word.

Any junior engineer uses it in a report to me learns better.

[DavidDvorkin]

24. Nevah!

[tblue37]

27. Merriam-Webster is a descriptive, rather than a prescriptive, dictionary, so it *follows* common

usage rather than prescribing "proper" usage.I

Language changes over time according to common usage, but formal usage is more conservative, so in formal writing and speech, it would still be wise to avoid "irregardless."

[frogmarch]

28. If someone snuck in "irregardless" when we conversated,

I would have a cow.

[lunatica]

29. Languages evolve just like everything else.

If you’ve ever read or studied Old English or Chaucer you know this. And the way languages evolve starts from the vernacular by the uneducated.

[lindysalsagal]

31. Thank goodness I'll be able to sleep tonight...

Sorry, but this doesn't get within 500 yards of my list of things that might possibly matter to anyone. Ever.

[USALiberal]

32. i dont giv a shitt

[Mosby]

33. I don't like how he used the word "too" in the title

It might be technically correct but it looks wrong, he could have just said:

Irregardless’ is a word; you just don’t understand dictionaries.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. I would guess that was on purpose, to get more clicks from people

who don't like "is too".

[intrepidity]

35. And why do Brits say "al-u-mi-nium"?

That's what I want to know. It grates as much as nukular to my ear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Because it's spelled "aluminium"

according to IUPAC: https://www.webelements.com/aluminium/history.html

[intrepidity]

39. Oh. Ok.

As long as pronunciation is consistent with spelling.

I did not know this:

Aluminium was also the accepted spelling in the U.S.A. until 1925, at which time the American Chemical Society decided to revert back to aluminum, and to this day Americans still refer to aluminium as "aluminum".

Cool thanks