Poll: Irregardless >:(

[Eisenfaust]

i don't like it, but there are some justifcations for using double negatives... not irregardless, that one just sounds stupid... but something like "not unfortunate" where the double negative is split, there taken to mean that while it wasn't unfortunate, it wasn't necessarily forunate either...

they can be useful for accurately portraying the middle-ground/uncertainty

i can't actually think of any sentence that needs irregardless... "regarding..." creates a completely differen sentence to "regardless..." but irregardless seems to be a round about method of not actually saying anything

 

[Kevonovitch]

double negative thats still a negative...oxymoron it's english's way of going "u mad bro?"

 

[Snotnarok]

What bothers me far more "Same difference" uhhhhhhhh....well let's just leave that out there for people to judge.

 

[Escapefromwhatever]

For instance, "This is not uncommon" is fine when one is trying to say that something is rare.

Um, "this is not uncommon" actually means that something is common, not rare.

Derp, brain fart. Thanks for pointing that out. Goodness, that post makes me look bad.

 

[Daft_Ninja]

if the improper language is used long enough it will become a word "irregardless" of its correctness. i would also like to note that irregardless is considered correct on my computer.

 

[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?

PREPARE FOR WALL OF TEXT
(I promise it's worth reading if you actually have strong feelings either way on this topic)

Spoiler: Wall of text spoilered

(1) Proper and improper are socioeconomic designators with regard to language. Language itself gives us no metric for what is proper or improper.
(1a) "Ain't", for instance, is a perfectly fine word. I've yet to hear any argument against its use with a linguistic reason given, not even a bad argument with a bad reason, and I'm doubtful that such an argument even exists to be made.

(2) Prefixes don't necessarily have to "mean" things. I know you were taught this in school and I'm very sorry that you were lied to. Prefixes only seem to mean independent things because a lot of the words bearing them have some similarity in meaning. While English tends to be relatively regular about this and some languages are downright dictatorial, there are plenty of languages with prefixes that change the meaning of roots they're attached to so wildly that it's not even possible to give a "meaning" for the prefix (see Russian derivational verbal morphology).

(3) Deriving a word that means the same thing as the word it's derived from is not at all uncommon. There are plenty of words in common usage today that were derived in just this way.

(4) The lack of "logic" in "double negatives" is a product of relatively recent commentary on language by amateurs with little actual experience in what they're talking about. A vast number of languages use "double negatives" for simple negation everywhere (French when negating objects "He didn't meet nobody", Russian when negating any noun "Nobody didn't go nowhere"). The idea that two linguistic negatives make a positive grew out of the development of formal logic and is based on a mistaken notion that words with negative polarity can be perfectly modeled with the formal negative.

So no, I don't have a problem with it. And if you do, you should recognise that your problem with it has no linguistic justification. As such, any problem you have with it is really just a problem you have with the sort of people who use it (similar to "ain't").

That's very interesting. I'm not a linguist, so I didn't realize that the use of double-negatives was so common in other languages, or that it's not always correct practice to try to dissect prefixes and suffixes like I did in my original post.

In spite of the fact that "irregardless" may be technically acceptable, I still think it sounds dumb, but I guess that's the point you were trying to make. Rather than a socioeconomic prejudice, I would characterize it as intellectual elitism, since many of my immediate socioeconomic peers will use "irregardless" (and I have not been shy about criticizing them for it). But apparently it was faux intellectual elitism, since I didn't really understand the intricacies of the linguistics behind this sort of construction.

 

[breadsammich]

Language is ever-evolving. 13 years ago, the word "muggle" was gibberish. Now, most everybody knows what it is.

 

[crudus]

I think it is a word. Just a word that is misused constantly, like irony. It is saying "I won't not take that into account". (meaning it will)

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?

Common usage does not supersede it. It just means people aren't taking into consideration what they are saying. "I couldn't care less" vs "I could care less". People aren't thinking about the actual words they are saying but the meaning itself is understood.

Knid of lkie how this sentnece is stlil leiglbe.

 

[Drakulea]

Erm... did anybody bother to check a dictionary? Or a wikipedia article if found on the topic?

I mean,really, this is a linguistic topic, there's people educated in linguistics.

THREE pages, not one single academic reference quote, only self-serving 'opinions' ... what's with this anti-intellectualism?

Sure we're all likely 18-35 years old with a healthy disdain, past,present or future, of compulsory learning. But really, people.

This thread is like watching Bible fanatics "debunking" evolution : they have NO education on the subject, a COMPLETE disdain for scientific rigor, and a WHOLE lot of ego.

*Sigh* ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

... What's next, a poll on the law of gravity? Opinions on quantum mechanics? Links to youtube or pictures with nazis in a "debate" about the distance between the Earth and Moon?

I apologize, but some of these attempts above at linguistic analysis from people here who obviously aren't educated on the subject reminds me of the "I can do science me!" segment of a show called "Brainiac" (google is your friend)

It's cringe-inducing, like asking random Americans about where Romania is. ( "It's on EARTH?!?" )

EDIT : Praise God for "The Intertubes", but really, since when did (uninformed) opinion and (informed) education end up being equal?

 

[irani_che]

irregardlessly,
I will keep using the word

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I think it's a stupid word, but I don't freak out or anything.

 

[zehydra]

"Does common usage supersede grammatical rules"

common usage determines grammatical rules, not the other way around.

However, we don't really need irregardless anyway, since it seems pretty redundant and most people don't say it to begin with, so...

One step along the way in cleaning up this messed up language of ours.

 

[loodmoney]

It's kind of annoying, but I think that that's mostly to do with (1) people using it because it is longer, (2) it is redundant while we still have "regardless" in common usage, and (3) if someone uses "irregardless", and you agree with them, you are forced to use that word or use "regardless" to mean the same thing. Conversational awkwardness ensues.

 

[Aurgelmir]

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

or people that type "I could of done that" when they mean "I could've done that"

as for Irregardless... my computer seems to think it is a word... don't get a red line under it or anything when I type... But yeah it does have a double negative don't it.

Wiktionary states this about the word:

"Although well attested, this term is widely regarded as nonstandard and an illiteracy for regardless or irrespective, and is probably inappropriate in virtually any formal setting, except quoted dialog."

 

[BoredDragon]

I'm a grammar nazi and even I don't really care

 

[yanipheonu]

Language changes naturally, and I don't live with the expectation that everyone follow my arbitrary rules for the language. So if people use the word they can, so long as they can keep the meaning consistant and actually be able to communicate with it.

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

...

"Bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs."

Not really. Everyone has differing beliefs for sure, but a bigot is someone who is intolerant of other beliefs... and some people ARE tolerant of other beliefs. I mean, your milage may vary I suppose, but that's kind of a depressing perspective to have.

 

[Spade Lead]

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

Seriously? "Intensive purposes?" The phrase is "For all intents and purposes..."

Who the fuck says "Intensive purposes?"

 

[Spade Lead]

Erm... did anybody bother to check a dictionary? Or a wikipedia article if found on the topic?

I mean,really, this is a linguistic topic, there's people educated in linguistics.

THREE pages, not one single academic reference quote, only self-serving 'opinions' ... what's with this anti-intellectualism?

Sure we're all likely 18-35 years old with a healthy disdain, past,present or future, of compulsory learning. But really, people.

This thread is like watching Bible fanatics "debunking" evolution : they have NO education on the subject, a COMPLETE disdain for scientific rigor, and a WHOLE lot of ego.

*Sigh* ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregardless

... What's next, a poll on the law of gravity? Opinions on quantum mechanics? Links to youtube or pictures with nazis in a "debate" about the distance between the Earth and Moon?

I apologize, but some of these attempts above at linguistic analysis from people here who obviously aren't educated on the subject reminds me of the "I can do science me!" segment of a show called "Brainiac" (google is your friend)

It's cringe-inducing, like asking random Americans about where Romania is. ( "It's on EARTH?!?" )

EDIT : Praise God for "The Intertubes", but really, since when did (uninformed) opinion and (informed) education end up being equal?

Well, if you want to be that way about it...

I am in college, and attempting to become a published writer. If we were talking about physics (something I happen to be studying) or Astronomy (my major), I would weigh in on those. Instead, we are talking about English (my original major in college). According to the rules of English, irregardless is incorrect unless you are using it in it's true form, meaning not regardless. If you use irregardless when you really mean regardless, obviously you are doing it wrong. In the future, it may become correct, through common usage, but as of right now, it is wrong.

Ain't is in the dictionary, but it still sounds uneducated. The same goes for irregardless.

Just because a word is in the dictionary doesn't mean it sounds intelligent, or correct.