Irregardless Ain't No Kinda Word
Irregardless Ain't No Kinda Word
I says irregardless ain't no kinda word. NeoThermic done disagrees with me. I wants to know your opinion.
xander
xander
- Ace Rimmer
- level5
- Posts: 10803
- Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
- Location: The Multiverse
Re: Irregardless Ain't No Kinda Word
xander wrote:I says irregardless ain't no kinda word. NeoThermic done disagrees with me. I wants to know your opinion.
xander
i says 'aint' isn't a word
but yeah irregardless is a word, how do i know? it aint comin' up as a spelling error in my browser (i loves me firefox)
Webster's defines it as "a nonstandard or humorous usage"? i don't understand that.
- NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
-
- level5
- Posts: 11553
- Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
Since I was the one who pointed this out in another threat I should probably post here. . .
"Irregardless" is a word in so far as it is made of characters and can be pronounced. However it is not generally considered a proper word in the English language. It is an erroneous portmanteau, a combination of parts from two or more words. It comes from smashing together "irrespective" and "regardless". The new "word" doesn't make any sense and is clearly a mistake.
"Irregardless" is a word in so far as it is made of characters and can be pronounced. However it is not generally considered a proper word in the English language. It is an erroneous portmanteau, a combination of parts from two or more words. It comes from smashing together "irrespective" and "regardless". The new "word" doesn't make any sense and is clearly a mistake.
- NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Since I was the one who pointed this out in another threat I should probably post here. . .
"Irregardless" is a word in so far as it is made of characters and can be pronounced. However it is not generally considered a proper word in the English language. It is an erroneous portmanteau, a combination of parts from two or more words. It comes from smashing together "irrespective" and "regardless". The new "word" doesn't make any sense and is clearly a mistake.
Yep. It is, however, used in speech, and can be found in a good number of dictionaries. As my previous post states, we do need a criteria here to agree on it.
NeoThermic
-
- level5
- Posts: 11553
- Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
NeoThermic wrote:
Yep. It is, however, used in speech, and can be found in a good number of dictionaries. As my previous post states, we do need a criteria here to agree on it.
NeoThermic
It is generally listed as a mistake or non-standard though. This really just means it is mistakenly used often enough that it needs to be officially recorded.
- NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:NeoThermic wrote:
Yep. It is, however, used in speech, and can be found in a good number of dictionaries. As my previous post states, we do need a criteria here to agree on it.
NeoThermic
It is generally listed as a mistake or non-standard though. This really just means it is mistakenly used often enough that it needs to be officially recorded.
Languages do evolve though. If we handed an essay to someone from a hundred years ago, they would probably find the use of English in it horrible. Could the use of irregardless be one of evolution in the language or not?
NeoThermic
NeoThermic done edited mah poll! You dun ruin mah joke!
By the way, my own thoughts on irregardless: whatever the "logical" meaning of the word, or what prescriptive grammarians think about its value, it is used in language, and is understood. As such, it is certainly a word. However, it is not a word that I would use in formal writing or speech, as it would be incorrect to use it in such a context.
xander
By the way, my own thoughts on irregardless: whatever the "logical" meaning of the word, or what prescriptive grammarians think about its value, it is used in language, and is understood. As such, it is certainly a word. However, it is not a word that I would use in formal writing or speech, as it would be incorrect to use it in such a context.
xander
- NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
-
- level5
- Posts: 11553
- Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
- Contact:
xander wrote:NeoThermic done edited mah poll! You dun ruin mah joke!
By the way, my own thoughts on irregardless: whatever the "logical" meaning of the word, or what prescriptive grammarians think about its value, it is used in language, and is understood. As such, it is certainly a word. However, it is not a word that I would use in formal writing or speech, as it would be incorrect to use it in such a context.
xander
It is dangerous to go down the road of accepting something just because it is a common mistake though. People type "teh" instead of "the" all the time, but should we consider "teh" to be a proper word just because it is a common mistake? I think commonly used words can become legitimate parts of the language, but is something is clearly a mistake it should be called a mistake. "Irregardless" is clearly a mistake and no matter how common it should not be accepted as part of the language.
- NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
- BrianBlessed
- level4
- Posts: 867
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:33 pm
It's a word in the same way any commonly used sound or string of letters is a word, however the fact that it's not even a double-negative and is used interchangeably with regardless makes it an illogical and pointless word at best. Using my arbitrary measure of 'true English' I have turned to my OED circa 1964, which does not list the word.
N.B. Whilst on the topic of words, as far as both usage and dictionary entries are concerned the word nomenclative doesn't exist. I cannot really see why it doesn't exist, i'll admit that it might not need to be used often but I might wish to comment that I name things nomenclatively.
N.B. Whilst on the topic of words, as far as both usage and dictionary entries are concerned the word nomenclative doesn't exist. I cannot really see why it doesn't exist, i'll admit that it might not need to be used often but I might wish to comment that I name things nomenclatively.
- NeoThermic
- Introversion Staff
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
- Location: ::1
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests