OneMoreRobot3021 said:

Irregardless. Just listen to it, yuck, 'tis a horrid word. Especially when, as the excerpt you provide notes, it is an attempt to replace irrespective. Irregardless sounds downright plebeian next to irrespective, which is rapier-sharp, like my wit, good sir.

---

Quote:

Let's go to the source of the language -- what's the OED say about irregardless? Well, they waffle a bit and, in the end, they lean on the famous OED brush-off -- it's "American dialectical" and, well, if it's part of a dialect, then "no firm judgment shall be made." They long ago recognized that, as part and parcel of taking over half the world, and given the nature of the English language, there would be variations which, for the most part, are acceptable. Dialects are not only forgiven, but all of us tolerate formal writing in dialect. That's how Irvine Welsh made his money, but he's a babe in the woods. When Sam Clemens sat down and wrote in dialect, it's my opinion that the cultural significance was almost on the level of the creation of the printing press. It proved the OED theory that the best way to proceed is to be open minded when it comes to "correct" usage. It's an ever-changing thing, and people everywhere will still understand you no matter what you say.

Webster provides a bit more clarity. They go ahead and pronounce irregardless as incorrect usage, but then provide a caveat that it's "growing in popularity." Given time, they feel, it may well become a part of formal English. It's used in writing and upper-class conversation more often than other slang words. That brings up the question of cultural association. When I say "Ain't" you think of poor people, gangster's molls and the uneducated. When I say "irregardless," what do you think of?

"Ain't" will never make it into formal English because of the association, but irregardless is fighting a successful war that, one day, will place it within the realm of correct usage or close enough to be overlooked by editors.

Yale University is responsible for the greatest coup. There's a faction that came out and defended "irregardless" as part of the language. This was based on the "unboundless" theory I mentioned earlier - a few hundred years ago, the redundant negative was used to stress the point in formal English. Irregardless, had it existed in that time, would have been accepted. It's even evolved beyond that point by combining two like words. The ultimate example for folks who believe English follows a natural growth pattern out of our control. Irregardless, perhaps, is ahead of its time. There's even a wing of literary nuts that consider irregardless to be a romanticized throwback to the older styles of the language.

Now, if one of the English-speaking world's leading universities all but embraces the word, and if the leading lexicon refuses to pass judgment, and if the leading American dictionary sidesteps an absolute ruling, then is "irregardless" incorrect usage? If you use it in a book or an article, your editor will correct it without a second thought. It's a made up word, but it's not on the level of goobijoobijoo. It has a strange power, and maybe that's the true logical absurdity. What allows it to maintain? One thing's for sure, if the community is unable to make a judgment, then people are perfectly justified to say "Irregardless of this..." when speaking to their friends at the bar. The word has a strong backing (or the greater power of abstaining votes) from the powerhouse masters of our English language. Until they say differently with no ifs or buts, then the word is acceptable by default.

In the spoken language, "irregardless" succeeds as an emotion word. Though people who use it are, most likely, chowderheads, the word does serve a purpose for the educated folk. The emphasis is placed on the negative. "Regardless of what happens" is a tame way to put it. It has a certain apathetic sound to it ("pococurante" is my action word this weekend, mainly because it came up in conversation and my response was "Pocacawhaty?" It means indifferent or nonchalant).

Now, "Irregardless of what happens." How's that sound? There's power behind it. It starts with a negative. It says clearly, without indifference, that what happens does not matter. It conveys conviction. Using "regardless," I have the image of an Englishman gently squeezing my shoulder and consoling me. "Regardless of what happens, we'll move forward." But put "Irregardless" in there and the image changes to a man in uniform hitting his desk, the map of the front line moving in a gentle breeze that smells of death and gunpowder.

As spoken English, the word has a definite purpose. Used correctly, to stress the negative, it has a firm place in the culture of our language. Since it's only a matter of time before it transcends the boundaries of slang and incorrect usage and enters the lexicon, then all of the snooty people who get on your case about it should clam up.

---