Poll: Irregardless >:(

[DanDeFool]

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's the word "irregardless".

Why? Because it's clearly not a real word! It doesn't make any sense!

The prefix "ir-" clearly means "not", like how "irrelevant" means "not relevant". But "regardless" means "without regard to", so "irregardless" means "not without regard to". It's a blatant double-negative, and it baffles me how anyone can stomach such a grotesque bastardization.

However, it's coming into common usage, which brings me to the discussion. I use improper English words, like "ain't", myself, and I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the ins-and-outs of grammar and punctuation. So what do you think? Does common usage supersede grammatical rules, or is wrong wrong, regardless (or "irregardless", as the case may be) of common practice?

 

[Nicolairigel]

GAHHHHHHH it pisses me off when people say it... YOU DON'T SOUND ANY SMARTER ITS NOT A REAL WORD
!!!!!11!

 

[BlumiereBleck]

It's like using the word "bigot", every human being falls under that word. so a double neggie.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

The world will remain, irregardless of what you wish.

 

[FalloutJack]

Funnily enough, I don't actually care. You're welcome to freak out every time it's said, but that's for you and not for me.

 

[Najos]

Common usage supersedes grammatical rules. A LOT of things don't make sense. While your example is certainly incorrect, there are words that start with "ir" and don't hold to the rule of it being a negative prefix, such as irradiate.

But yeah, it annoys me too. I just don't like it because MOST of the time, words are used incorrectly because they are easier, but irregardless is actually harder. Oh, and Firefox doesn't show it as a spelling error...it must be real!

 

[Sarynroth]

I don't think I've ever heard anyone use the word. So yeah I'm not that bothered by it.

 

[justnotcricket]

I always thought that it was people getting confused about the phrase 'irrespective of', and adding an extra negative to the 'regardless of' that they're using.

Now I've just realised that what *I* said was confusing...sorry =P Basically, what I meant was that you can say virtually the same thing with either 'irrespective of' or 'regardless of' - people are just forgetting which one they want and kind of amalgamating them.

It's not as bad as 'alot' and 'your' instead of 'you're', though. Those make me want to cry =(. And no, not because I think the people who make those mistakes are stupid. More because I think their school system failed them because schools don't seem to teach grammar any more. Do they just expect people to instantly know this stuff?

Sorry...other pet peeve... =P

 

[mireko]

It does annoy me. Not as much as "for all intensive purposes", but it does annoy me.

 

[Eri]

I don't like it, esp. because it's wrong. Peole that try to use it anyway annoy me.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I suppose so, if all those other dumb ass words that are becoming words count, then this one can too.

I always just say regardless.

 

[intheweeds]

I see your 'irregardless'...
and raise you an 'overexaggerate'

Edit: I realized i didn't really answer the question. No, common usage does not supercede grammar. Just because you keep saying something wrong doesn't mean you get to eventually declare it right. In my opinion falling back on 'common usage' is just a cop out for not giving a shit about your own education.

 

[ZeroMachine]

The world will remain, irregardless of what you wish.

DAMMIT, that means my plan failed! You win this round, WORLD!

 

[Android2137]

Sounds like you feel the same way about that word as I do about the misuse of the word "literally". I've never heard of "irregardless" before, but I hear "literally" being misused all the time. It's especially unbearable when it's a public speaker and it's not socially acceptable to stand up and yell "SO THERE WERE BRAIN BITS FLYING AROUND EVERYWHERE?!" (statement: "It literally blew his mind.")

 

[Agayek]

-snip-

Considering every language on Earth evolved into its current form precisely because of such bastardizations, I'm not really sure what the problem is.

 

[Falconsgyre]

Well, language evolves, so I probably shouldn't be too annoyed. But dammit, can't it evolve in a way that isn't a logical contradiction? "Irregardless" and "I could care less" are two of the only neologisms I can't stand.

Also, the spell check for these forums accepts "irregardless" as a word. So I guess that's already decided, then.

 

[DEAD34345]

I don't think the word should be got rid of or anything, but every time I hear someone say it I get the immediate impression that they are trying to sound smart for some reason. I don't know how true that is, and I doubt it has really made a difference in how I have responded to people, but it's just the impression I get when I hear people say it. Probably because the people who tend to use it in my experience really have been trying to sound smarter to other people.

 

[DanDeFool]

-snip-

Considering every language on Earth evolved into its current form precisely because of such bastardizations, I'm not really sure what the problem is.

I would say because it's not a modification of the language (e.g. "isn't" to "ain't"), but rather a clear (and, in my opinion, offensively insipid) violation of the rules of the language, but that's where I run into trouble. The English language is infamous for its constant violations of rules and conventions, to the point where "irregardless" might be deemed the least of its collective sins.

After all, if the plural of "mouse" is "mice", then why isn't the plural of "house" then "hice"?

 

[instantbenz]

i have profs that i openly laugh at in class for using it use it. it's more funny than infuriating to me.

 

[Ace of Spades]

Of course it isn't acceptable because it's a double negative and it isn't a real word, but people will still use it.