Poll: Irregardless >:(

[Gaiseric]

I'm going to be honest...

...I didn't know it wasn't a real word until I joined this site.

edit: You grammar nazis are making me smarter. STOP IT!

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I'm not a fan of that word, and I don't see the point in saying it. I know people will still use it whether I like it or not.

 

[SillyBear]

Yeah, it annoys me when people say this. My teacher always used to say "irregardless of the situation..." No! You can use the word regardless right there, man!

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

Usually bigots are the ones who say this because they think there is justification and merit to their bigotry, so they claim that they aren't bigots and everyone who calls them out doesn't know what the word bigot really means. And no, according to the definition of bigot, everyone is not a bigot.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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

Shouldn't that phrase be "for all intents and purposes" or have I been saying it wrong all this time?

 

[mireko]

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

Shouldn't that phrase be "for all intents and purposes" or have I been saying it wrong all this time?

Yes. Yes it should. "For all intents and purposes" makes sense. "For all intensive purposes" does not, unless there's some weird context to it.

 

[StellarViking]

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

Shit, ninja'd. Oh well.

Irregardless doesn't really make sense, it's sort of like the whole "same difference" thing that I hear more often than I'd like. I wish it wouldn't exist.

 

[Agayek]

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"?

Better example would be using "mouses" as the plural, as that's the "base" rule.

That said, I fully agree with you that several of the changes in language are incredibly stupid, but the fact of the matter is, the only "right" form of a language is the one people actually speak. Thus, when misspellings or pronunciations become common enough they become part of the language itself. That's literally how new languages derive from old ones. The best example is Latin into the various European languages. As people spread out, accents and various other mispronunciations/errors started appearing and would catch on. The process repeated itself so many times that eventually a completely new language popped up. That's how etymology works.

Shouldn't that phrase be "for all intents and purposes" or have I been saying it wrong all this time?

No you're right. A lot of people say "for all intensive purposes" though, which makes no sense and is the same thing the OP is railing against.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Irregardless of how we feel, it will still be used...

[sub]I hate it too but I've morphed my emotional response from hostility to the person using it to loathing of the word itself.[/sub]

 

[Agayek]

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.

If enough people start using it, then it will become grammar, so yes, common usage does supersede language rules.

It may be idiotic, but that's how languages work.

 

[dex-dex]

not going to lie but I have never heard that word ever. Irregardless. what the hell?
It's regardless.
what irritates me more is this:

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

Irregardless is stupid to say (and Google Chrome thinks its a word, so to hell with Google Chrome).

Just like "I could care less" is stupid to say, because that implies that you do, in fact, care to a certain extent.

People need to think about what words they are saying when they say them. If they are saying something that doesn't make sense literally because it is a figure of speech, that is fine. If they are saying something that doesn't make any sense because they are bastardizing a word or figure of speech, then something is wrong.

 

[Riobux]

Never heard of that word being used, but it does remind me of when people fail to use the phrase "I couldn't care less" incorrectly.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Yeah, it annoys me when people say this. My teacher always used to say "irregardless of the situation..." No! You can use the word regardless right there, man!

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

Usually bigots are the ones who say this because they think there is justification and merit to their bigotry, so they claim that they aren't bigots and everyone who calls them out doesn't know what the word bigot really means. And no, according to the definition of bigot, everyone is not a bigot.

Did i say there was justification for it? And yes, everyone is. Everyone holds beliefs that influences their decisions and prejudices.

 

[Jodah]

Need I say more?

 

[Mannayz]

It almost sends me into a repressed fury the same way that some Americans call the English language "American".

 

[SillyBear]

Yeah, it annoys me when people say this. My teacher always used to say "irregardless of the situation..." No! You can use the word regardless right there, man!

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

Usually bigots are the ones who say this because they think there is justification and merit to their bigotry, so they claim that they aren't bigots and everyone who calls them out doesn't know what the word bigot really means. And no, according to the definition of bigot, everyone is not a bigot.

Did i say there was justification for it? And yes, everyone is. Everyone holds beliefs that influences their decisions and prejudices.

That is not what a bigot is. Bigot holds negative connotations and refers to someone who is aggressively and negatively intolerant of different people and beliefs. This does not mean everyone is a bigot. And even if it did, the word bigot is used to refer to people who do this strongly. Just like the word hypocrite, we are all hypocrites technically but a "hypocrite" is someone who is incredibly hypocritical to the point that it is noticeable and rude. Bigot is similar. We may all be slightly intolerant of other beliefs (I'm agreeing for the sake of discussion), but that doesn't mean we can't call people who do this excessively and do this more often bigots.

 

[Nimcha]

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

Hah, I've never heard that one, but I like it.

Personally I detest 'me either' in stead of 'me neither'. And the ever old 'I could care less'. Hee.

 

[brinvixen]

I HATE IRREGARDLESS. Poor "regardless", he was just as effective without slapping on that useless "IR" in front of it. Worse, I feel like every time I hear someone use it, it's because that person wants to sound smarter than they think they are (Big Word Syndrome I call it), and it just makes them look more foolish.