October 12, 2007 4:00 AM PDT

Off topic: In defense of 'irregardless'

Irregardless of the topic of this post, here is a photo of Oscar Gamble.

(Credit: Baseball-Fever.com)

In a post I wrote a couple of weeks ago about overpriced Halo USB drives, I used the word "irregardless." And as these TalkBack posts show, it wasn't a very popular decision.

For example, one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.

In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.

But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.

  1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.

  2. Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.

  3. Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.

  4. It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.

  5. It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris, roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.

  6. If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.

  7. So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

Recent posts from Crave
Poll: Seinfeld and Vista, what gives?
Review: 2008 Mazda CX-9 Grand Touring
Dish Network's new TR-40 DTV converter box: Same as the DTVPal, but $20 less
Cutting edge: MP3 players with built-in WiFi
First impression on Thecus N3200 NAS device
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 61 comments (Page 1 of 6)
Defend it all the way
by dparial October 12, 2007 4:38 AM PDT
I agree, use the word. I'll pass it on in my office :oD
Reply to this comment
You tell them!
by evildonald October 12, 2007 4:43 AM PDT
There is ONE type of comment I hate more than the 'wow' and 'lol' comments and those are the comments correcting the grammar of the author of the article.

If you are one of those people, then you must be very smart! Go join MENSA and then hang the certificate around your neck so everyone can see how smart you are. Obviously you feel a need to prove it. Perhaps then you can stop correcting grammar in web articles and annoying the rest of us. The 'lol' people are better than you.
Reply to this comment
A word Bush would use
by icanc4 October 12, 2007 6:04 AM PDT
The very source you use to defend the word says not to use it? That seems incredibly (i.e. lacking credibility) selective. That kind of documentary evidence in favour of an argument got the US into war in Iraq.

Dictionaries are obliged to record words if they enter the language through common usage, but that doesn't mean they're correct or elegant. Let me axe you this: just because you hear it on the street, is it okay to put it in print?
Reply to this comment
Read the dictionary again!
by chaimperachya October 12, 2007 6:23 AM PDT
Irregardless is certainly NOT an acceptable word. Check Merriam-Webster again - it says "Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead." According to Strunk & White, "[When people use "irregardless",] the error results from failure to see the negative in -less and from a desire to get it in as a prefix, suggested by such words as irregular, irresponsible, and perhaps especially, irrespective."
Reply to this comment
To which population do you wish to conform?
by U. Tripps October 12, 2007 6:51 AM PDT
Use it and conform to ignorant common usage. Or don't use it, and conform to the demands of the educated person.

You don't get to be an individual on this one, no matter what you choose. Your column is funny, though.
Reply to this comment
Enough Stupid People...
by dwfitz October 12, 2007 7:00 AM PDT
So by this logic, if enough stupid people, in their ignorance, make up a new word that is nonsense, then the rest of the world must adopt the resulting atrocity of English?!?! This man will not join. However, I do encourage you to keep on identifying yourself with that group of people. By the way, add this one to your repertoire; orientated instead of oriented. If you want so very much to sound uneducated, if not backwards, you will also want to add "tated" to a group of "ted" words. Keep going, I embrace your desire to write and speak within a lower class of education.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
Irredunant
by Montmc October 12, 2007 7:04 AM PDT
I think most of your rules are irregurgitations of the same reasons.
Reply to this comment
Re: A Word Bush Would Use
by SlanderPanic October 12, 2007 7:10 AM PDT
HURF BURF BUSH IZ STOOPID
IM BEIN OREGANUL ON TEH INTERTRUCK LOWLZ

(And yes, I've seen that "Intelligence as the dump stat" motivator 900,000 times.)
Reply to this comment
See Also:
by gth740k October 12, 2007 7:32 AM PDT
Also:

inflammable = flammable

Good day.
Reply to this comment
Tated Too!
by dwfitz October 12, 2007 8:51 AM PDT
By the way, add this one to your repertoire; orientated instead of oriented. If you want so very much to sound uneducated, if not backwards, you will also want to add "tated" to a group of "ted" words. Keep going, I embrace your desire to write and speak within a lower class of education.
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement

About Crave

The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com

I Crave

advertisement
Crave home

Crave

Switch background color:
A Blog from CNET

A Blog from CNET

Visit other CNET Networks sites: