Is Irregardless a Word?


Few words draw the ire of grammarians as swiftly as irregardless. The term has been in use in English for over a century, but its validity continues to be the subject of debate. Today we will explore the uses of and controversy surrounding irregardless.

Irregardless is a nonstandard synonym for regardless, which means “without concern as to advice, warning, or hardship,” or “heedless.” Its nonstandard status is due to the double negative construction of the prefix ir- with the suffix -less. The prefix ir- means “not,” while the suffix -less means “without,” literally translating to “not without regard.” This, of course, is the opposite of what English speakers generally intend to convey when using this term; for this reason, style guides unanimously urge against using irregardless.

Although editors purge irregardless from most published writing, the term is alive and well in spoken English and is recorded in most dictionaries. Those who use it may do so to add emphasis.

The bottom line is that irregardless is indeed a word, albeit a clunky one. That said, to avoid the wrath of your grammar-loving friends, it’s safest to avoid using irregardless altogether.

Like this Word Fact? Sign up for our Word Fact of the Week email!


  1. Jacqueline -  October 27, 2016 - 1:51 pm

    What about irridisregardless?

  2. Napalmcheng -  July 25, 2016 - 1:32 pm

    I’m a little dismayed at the rancor involved with a word. And yes, irregardless is a word. It just may not be your kind of word. I’m cool with that. I also happen to be a linguist and researcher in applied linguistics. Systemic Functional Linguistics or the basic tenets of language is to deliver meaningful symbols which have corresponding referents; this could be a thought, an observation, or plain old information.

    Irrespective of whether you like them or not blended words, portmanteaux, rephonemicization, or sound change is how language develops. Where one could have issue is not with blended words like brunch or motel but with a blended word like infotainment. The reason is because brunch and motel have been around a lot longer. No one ever complains about the ligature ampersand (&) even though it is a complete mispronunciation. I will often throw in a nonstandard word just to get people to argue with me.

    I understand the fear of neologisms by the oft vocal grammarians, with or without credentials in linguistics. They have my respect. They want to maintain an order to language, which in turn honors their culture and mother tongue. But this ain’t France and English has no Académie française, thank goodness. Please realize when you separate people into socioeconomic groupings or recognize non-native versus native speakers of any language what you’re doing is being biased.

    English is internationally influenced, highly evolved, and unrecognizable from its origins. It has borrowed from so many other languages, living and dead, that I hasten to still consider it a language unto its own but rather a collection of many languages. Unless you’re writing a term paper or a dissertation, as I am, say whatever you like and let others do the same. C’est la vie.

    • LauraFedora -  October 4, 2016 - 5:03 pm

      Using irregardless in place of regardless is just as dumb as using “I could care less” in place of “I couldn’t care less.” Just because everyone makes the mistake doesn’t make it okay! I have yet to hear a single person use “irregardless” to mean “not without regard” or “with regard,” so it’s not like people are running around using it properly. If people ever used it correctly it wouldn’t be quite so maddening. Yes, language is constantly evolving, and for the most part, that’s fantastic. On the other hand, that’s why people started saying YOLO when they mean carpe diem :(

      • Kim -  November 19, 2016 - 5:58 pm

        Well said!

    • Waye Cunningham -  November 5, 2016 - 12:43 pm

      Depends upon what grammatical system to which you might ascribe. Any word ever used by a speaking human is a real word. However, as a language develops sophistication, the structure and spelling and pronunciation of words becomes increasingly important. So ‘irregardless’ is generally seen as a pathetic attempt by a person who lacks eloquence to ‘sound’ sophisticated. I believe that clarity should be the defining yardstick. Since ‘irregardless’ uses the double negative, it lacks clarity as to whether the user is trying to say ‘regardless’ or ‘not regardless’. For instance, some believe that the word ‘foreplay’ can be substituted by the phrase “Yo, you awake?”

      • Michael Brennan -  November 20, 2016 - 3:15 am

        It curdles my skin when I heat someone use “irregardless’, and is usually used by those with little, if any, higher education. ‘Irregardless” is improper and those that use it should be corrected.

        • Laura -  December 8, 2016 - 5:13 pm

          It also curdles their skin when you heat someone ;) irony..

    • Cae -  November 19, 2016 - 5:16 pm

      As an aspiring linguist, you give me hope. I’m saddened by the prescriptivism and elitism surrounding words like ‘irregardless.’ I find it fascinating how English has changed over the years. Words that were considered crass and ungainly long ago are in common use now with no negative judgement involved. Often those negative judgements involve societal prejudices, like you mentioned. Now, it’s the same old debate, just with different words. I think we should celebrate whenever a new word is made!

  3. Zehra -  June 9, 2016 - 11:31 am

    Wow, this is not the place for a non-native speaker o.o

    • Cody -  October 20, 2016 - 6:43 am

      Eh, just depends on how well you speak it. I am a native speaker and i still can’t grasp all of theses topics.

  4. Rey Gardd -  May 18, 2016 - 4:26 pm

    I suggest to use “nonirregardless” to mean “without regard”, and “irregardless” for “with regard”. Or, “without regardlessness” / “with irregardlessness”, if you will.

  5. Nikki -  March 10, 2016 - 11:14 am

    The evolution of language is ongoing and there will always be people that are stuck in the mistaken belief that change is bad. Example: cursive. It looks beautiful, but is basically useless.

    • Jesse -  March 14, 2016 - 9:33 am

      There will also be people who are stuck in the mistaken belief that all change is good or even okay. Yes, language changes. The world changes and sometimes we need new words for things which haven’t existed before, and that’s great. And sometimes language changes and it’s completely stupid. Example: literally literally not meaning literally. One cannot defend stripping a word of its only use. Irregardless doesn’t do that, so it’s not AS bad, but it’s still ridiculous to accept an antonym as a synonym, especially when it’s clearly a mistake. Changing the English language according to common mistakes is pretty silly.

      • tom -  March 31, 2016 - 8:53 am

        words have changed meaning throughout history, look at terms such as “nice, silly” or “awful.” These terms used to mean almost the opposite of what they mean today, certainly antonyms can become synonyms and that’s okay. Or are you going to start using these terms I’ve noted as their earlier definitions suggests in day to day conversations? We have to keep in mind that words do not have ownership of definitions, they change with time as we use them in our day to day vocabulary. It is the use of the term that will define its use, it’s not the definition itself that will define it.

      • Stewie -  April 8, 2016 - 11:12 am

        You’re pretty silly. (ᵔᴥᵔ)

    • Steven Som -  April 6, 2016 - 2:58 am

      I am a frustrated “teacher” having earned my degree in elementary education without completing my college certification requirements. I regard the word “irregardless”, yes, even the word “irrespective” not legitimate and its use in everyday communication written or other wise should be avoided. Americans are notorious for “butchering” the English language with incorrect uses of grammar and the over-use of colloquial slang. This “butchering” is most prevalent in the incorrect use of the personal pronouns.

      • Brian -  May 2, 2016 - 7:11 am

        “Irrespective” is a completely legitimate word. “Ir-” meaning not and “respective” meaning relating to. There are no double negatives here as there are in “irregardless,” so what is your rationale for saying it’s incorrect?

    • Eric -  August 5, 2016 - 1:03 pm

      “It looks beautiful, but is basically useless.” Like Kim Kardashian?

  6. Beau -  December 1, 2015 - 7:27 pm

    “Irregardless” is a word in that it exists, but it’s not proper grammar and should be omitted from the English language. Irregardless conveys “not regardless,” which means the person who thinks they’re not regarding their reference point actually IS regarding it.

    Come on, proponents of irregardless, use your brain! There’s no way your school system taught you this word. Pervasive ignorance does not validate its use.

    “Regardless” has been doing the job all along and doesn’t need a negating prefix for any reason.

    • Man person -  December 16, 2015 - 5:59 am

      I English speak good$ irregardless word is bee, cause iPhone correct me so:

      • JB -  April 12, 2016 - 10:43 am

        I hold irregardless in the same regard as other non-words:
        orientate (when meaning orient)

        • LauraFedora -  October 4, 2016 - 4:47 pm

          JB, THANK YOU. I would like to add the coffee drink “expresso” to your awesome list.

    • Can -  December 22, 2015 - 8:46 pm

      Thank you for using common sense and applying it at the same time.

    • Arun s -  February 18, 2016 - 7:16 pm

      I do tend to get irritated when I hear or read someone say irregardless. It sounds sort of illiterate because there is no such word. I feel they are trying to say irrespective but do not know it and are trying to sound over emphatic by incorrectly using the prefix ‘ir’.
      So in conclusion, I say there is the word regardless and the word irrespective. The two mean the same thing in a contextual way. To add the ‘ir’ to regardless is kind of like a double negative and could easily be construed to negate what they are saying.

  7. Teri -  November 19, 2015 - 10:07 am

    If you mean to say “in regard to” then by all means use the word. That is what it really means. If you mean to say “regardless” or “irrespective” then do not use it. The use of the word, when used to as an alternative way to say “regardless” is incorrect and unnecessary. It is the improper use of the suffix “ir” that is bothersome.

    Most dictionaries do include this word, but also point our that it is either an informal word or and incorrect word as it relates to the intended meaning.

    The impression I get when I hear the word is that the person using it is trying to sound as if they have a broader vocabulary or that they are trying to seem more intelligent. However, this impression is based only the folks that I personally know that tend to use the word.

  8. Robert -  November 10, 2015 - 4:11 pm

    It’s pretty simple: use ‘irrespective’ if you can’t use ‘regardless’.

  9. Joffre -  October 20, 2015 - 3:40 pm

    Can you give pacific examples?

    • Chuck -  November 3, 2015 - 12:44 pm

      Dammit. That’s funny.

    • Sonia -  November 10, 2015 - 11:14 am

      Exactly! Just because people say it doesn’t make it correct. My ears bleed every time I hear it.

      • Barbara Owen -  November 14, 2015 - 5:56 pm

        If it’s been around that long, has a definition and people continue using it, it’s a word. What’s the point of argument? .

    • Tara -  November 11, 2015 - 10:23 pm

      Joffre, I hope that you are joking because it’s funny, and if you’re not joking, it’s pathetic and scary.

    • bman -  January 22, 2016 - 1:16 am


      • Phlip -  February 3, 2016 - 11:23 am

        I could care less about this kind of stuff. Honestly, it’s a stupid to talk about.

        • Arun s -  February 18, 2016 - 7:27 pm

          First of all is your name Phlip or Philip or Phillip? You do care less if you don’t want to know the proper use of grammar.
          Come on!

      • Arun s -  February 18, 2016 - 7:25 pm

        Did you mean to say supposedly?

    • Arun s -  February 18, 2016 - 7:22 pm

      Joffre please, do you mean specific? Either that or you’re trying to be funny. Which is it?
      Anyway, Pacific is as in the ocean or islands, or islanders.

  10. Hmm. . . -  August 26, 2015 - 11:51 pm

    Perhaps we should cease this talk of irregardless, regardless of what each of us think, and discuss an important issue. Here are two suggestions:

    1) Drop the – per Dictionary.com – NONSTANDARD adverb form “irregardless” and discuss the adjective form “irregardlessably.” We must not act irregardlessably! ;o)

    2) Discuss a global issue, such as Whirled Peas. (Thing aboudit)

    • MaryAnn -  November 29, 2015 - 8:12 am

      Hmm…I’m sure you meant “what each of us THINKS”; since the noun “each” is singular, it requires a singular verb.

  11. John -  August 22, 2015 - 7:04 am

    Kind of like flammable and inflammable?

    • Robert -  November 10, 2015 - 3:45 pm

      Not quite: flammable was invented so people didn’t think that inflammable meant fireproof. It’s a public safety issue.

  12. Franklin Mint -  August 21, 2015 - 5:21 pm

    I aks you this: Isn’t irregardless little more than a rank poseur when it comes to the insidious return of supposably or even its grammar challenging equivalence I seen?

  13. Prashanth -  August 18, 2015 - 7:57 am

    Yes, it is a word as the meaning can be extrapolated from its affixes and root. But, it does not mean what the word “regardless” means [even though that may be the semantically invalid intent of the speaker (with respect to meaning outlined in a dictionary)].

  14. toxiceye -  August 17, 2015 - 8:11 pm

    It makes my spider-sense tingle.

  15. Bugs Nelson -  August 17, 2015 - 3:48 pm

    Irregardless is an unword… (or, is it an irword?)

    • Hil -  October 9, 2015 - 3:27 pm

      Nicely played Sir!

    • Arun s -  February 18, 2016 - 7:30 pm

      Bugs Nelson, that’s funny!

  16. Hmm. . . -  August 17, 2015 - 1:47 pm

    Unfortunately, many concocted words became accepted through common usage, regardless of the opinions of others. In our sad little hearts we know that’s true. AIN’T it?

    Now prepare for Iran getting a nookyular weapon, so they can become a nuclear power, too. Yes, it’s pronounced new-klee-er.

    You know this was all a waste of our time, right? On to actual important things. . . Hmm. . .

    • BlameTheMedia -  August 20, 2015 - 1:10 pm

      I’ll never understand why people say grammar discussions are a waste of time. How is it any more a waste of time than (to use your example) talking about nuclear deals? Frankly, the people having discussions about grammar have little to no bearing on such things as nuclear deals and other various world problems. In my opinion, there isn’t much which can’t be justified as an important discussion, save for one about the Kardashians.

      • Hmm. . . -  August 27, 2015 - 12:22 am

        It wasn’t a GRAMMAR discussion that’s the waste of time. It’s that the discussion won’t change the opinion of anyone who posted here. It wasn’t nuclear deals I was emphasizing, but pronunciation:
        New-klee-er, NOT new-Q-ler – AIN’T that oblivious cause of the sentence, “Yes, it’s pronounced new-klee-er”?

        Sheesh, everyone shoulda got that one, aynuh-hey?

        But you are correct, a grammar discussion is more important than achieving Whirled Peas. Excuse me now. I must go thump my head on the kitchen counter. . .

        • Philip -  September 6, 2015 - 9:28 am

          It’s not so much that a word was mispronounced as much as the pronunciation used protrayed a completely different word, let alone the fact that the person who used such language was none other than the leader of the free world. That was a prime example of the idiocy in our country.
          That president has problems on the nucular level.

        • Well, Well Then -  September 23, 2015 - 12:51 pm

          Good Lord, spare us all your feeble attempts at cleverness. For the love of God, stop!

          • Well, Well, Well Then -  September 28, 2015 - 2:21 pm

            I agree. Reading his comments (he has one earlier too) are the most painful thing on this page.

  17. Hesperus -  August 17, 2015 - 1:02 pm

    “Irregardless” NEVER shall be a word in my dictionary, except in the special purgatory section I label “Bastardizations.” This mutant is a Siamese twin of “irrespective” and “regardless” and just because ignoramuses use it does not change it. Another Bastardization Section dweller is the infinitive “to sculpt.” No one ever “sculpted” anything. It may have been “sculptured,” though. So, are we “copacetic?”

    • Infinitive -  August 10, 2016 - 10:59 am

      I think you will find that sculpted is a completely valid usage of the word, and is in fact closer to the root word than sculptured.
      Plenty of sculptures have been sculpted. So to have many non sculptures been sculpted. Such as concepts, or people(In who they are, not in statuesque form).

  18. Satish Shirali -  August 17, 2015 - 7:35 am

    It is a monstrosity, irregardless of whether it is a word, which I am willing to accept it as, but only so long as only other people use it and not I.

    • Marc -  August 18, 2015 - 1:40 am

      English isn’t my native language. I’m not trying to offend you but I find it funny how people get excited about the use of word/language.

      I’m sure I’ve made several mistakes in grammar/syntax and I don’t care because I want to communicate with you. However defective and illogical the words I’m using are.

      You do understand what I’m saying?

      • JAn -  August 20, 2015 - 5:09 pm

        Yes, smiling….

      • Arun s -  February 19, 2016 - 3:07 am

        Marc,Ummm, maybe….you’re getting there, try just a bit harder.
        Lol, just kidding!

  19. KJs Muse -  August 17, 2015 - 2:28 am

    While yes it is technically a word, it is a word that almost always means the opposite of what the user intended to say. Try doing that with every word you say for one day while conversing near a very high cliff.

  20. Bryan -  August 16, 2015 - 2:18 pm

    If I say it and you understand it then it’s a word. Just like converse VS. conversate IF I SAY IT and you UNDERSTAND IT.

    Then it’s a word.

    • Hesperus -  August 17, 2015 - 1:04 pm

      Is “convention” also a word?

  21. Harold Lee -  August 15, 2015 - 6:27 pm

    Irregardless is a word, irregardless of what you may think!

    Unsincerelessly, Harold

    • Hmm. . . -  August 17, 2015 - 1:34 pm

      I nearly fully agree: Improper words do remain words, but NOT irregardless of what others may or perhaps do not – think!

    • ni -  August 17, 2015 - 5:45 pm

      the fact of what you just said proves the fact people say it all the time, and it is a word that almost always means the opposite of what the user intended to say.
      so you made yourself look stupid when you said it. (though it was quite funny when i read it, good play on words)

      • Hmm. . . -  August 27, 2015 - 12:04 am

        Or perhaps I was anti-stupid enough to demonstrate something deeper: Irregardless is not a double negative, “not irregardless” is actually the “double” negative, much like unhappy (negative) and NOT unhappy (double-negative), and “not irregardless” = regardless, all that while creating an amusing comment.

        The only way attacking someone with words is truly amusing is when you attack/berate yourself. Got that Jason?

  22. aesop -  August 15, 2015 - 3:39 pm

    Irregardless is indeed a word. BUT, as it is most commonly used it means the opposite of what was intended to be said. It chaps me when people that know better use it. Much like the addition of ‘going forward’ at the end of a statement. Totally superfluous. I am not an educated man. But I think those of us who know how to use the language should use it correctly. There are many examples of highly respected men who chose to use the language as it was intended. Kipling, even more lately George Will are famous for their command of the language, yet neither had to use big or little known words to impress. Will especially has the ability to use words most of us have never heard or read. He could and would use those words correctly if he used them at all. He does not however feel the need to ‘impress’. The same can not be said for those who use words wrongly, or add words to extend their ‘face’ time.

  23. Nancy -  August 14, 2015 - 9:53 pm

    People will talk/write in whichever way they want.
    Being frugal in everything has its benefits
    Why write/say two more letters when you can write/say less?
    Regardless of your love for writing/talking.

  24. Jason -  August 14, 2015 - 6:43 pm

    Irregardless may be a word, but it is a word for commoners and blue collars. That may sound pompous and that’s because it is. We live in a classist society and I accept it and own it. Do I think I’m better than people who use “irregardless”? What do you think? So keep on using the word, it just shows your class. “English” is a very broad term. The language you use is indicative of the class from which you derive your roots and your future. When I hear irregardless I think “ok I’ve got an uneducated person on my hands – best to behavior accordingly.” That’s when I start treating them like a child – someone who just doesn’t know any better. To the educated and elite irregardless is not currently a word – it is a built-in double negative and makes no sense. It was seemingly brought into being by people uneducated enough to know that we don’t use double negatives when we write (or when we speak).

    • Hmm. . . -  August 17, 2015 - 1:28 pm

      “ok I’ve got an uneducated person on my hands – best to behavior accordingly.”
      “behavior accordingly”? Hmm. . . Sitting on you own hands?

      “we don’t use double negatives when we write (or when we speak)”
      While this writer is NOT UNEDUCATED, he denies a commenter’s usage of double-negatives for emphasis, not due to simple ignorance, but rather to appear MORE knowledgeable and correct.

      Perhaps some people use IMPROPER words, but words NONETHELESS, to feign ignorance, speak on the level of their audience, or simply with the intention of irritating the listener.

      When people beep at me in traffic, particularly due to THEIR error, I give them a big smile and wave heartily, knowing it will irritate them all-the-more thinking I’m so stupid that I believe they are attempting to say “Hello.”

      I state the above, not irregardless of the knowledge that Jason will be upset.

      • HotHeadLilRed -  August 23, 2015 - 3:40 pm

        Actually, I believe the correct term Jason is looking for is…….behave accordingly…..really now, doesn’t that sound better than behavior accordingly. Hope you noticed that I used the than word instead of the then word. These words are commonly used incorrectly.

        • howdyousaythat -  August 25, 2015 - 9:00 am

          It does seem appropriate for the speaker or in this case typist to know the meaning and proper usage of the words he uses, even if he is educated and elite. nice HHLR. :)

        • Hmm. . . -  August 26, 2015 - 11:38 pm

          The point I attempted to make, perhaps too subtly, is that Jason clearly was putting people down for their choice of grammar usage when his own usage proved to be no better, but in-fact likely “lower class” based on his example of “owning” his (self-assigned) “elite” class – or lack thereof.

          When will people learn that true “Class” is derived from the way you treat people, not your level of education? Successful comedians often construct jokes based on improper word usage. Does that make them stupid or smart due to their choice of grammar?

  25. Like -  August 14, 2015 - 1:29 pm

    Overall I appreciate the tone of the article. Theres a great TED talk on new words and this fits in line with it. I would “like” this article but see no button for it. So I will just comment under the name “like”.

  26. Johnny In Yuma -  August 14, 2015 - 12:17 pm

    And what about “Hot water heater”!!!?? I mean, come on now. Talk about redundancy!

    • Hmm. . . -  August 17, 2015 - 1:09 pm

      That’s what some of us use when their hot water isn’t hot enough.

  27. Johnny In Yuma -  August 14, 2015 - 12:12 pm

    I thought Casey Stengel invented this word.

    • Things are not always what they dont seem -  July 1, 2016 - 6:48 pm

      I think you meant Yogi Berra

  28. Kakus -  August 14, 2015 - 8:18 am

    If the word “regard” has a prefix and a suffix that both mean “without”, doesn’t that cancel each other out? So, when a person says irregardless, that word actually means “with regard” which is usually opposite to the rest of their idea or point.

    I pick and choose those people to correct when they use irregardless inappropriately. I tell them “that is not a word” to simplify the argument so they take more consideration the next time they use it. I know irregardless is in fact a word, but people typically use it in the wrong context, as if to emphasise their point. That really bugs me, especially at work when someone at the senior or corporate level, it’s even worse when it’s used in the media.

  29. Kate_H -  August 14, 2015 - 1:55 am

    You guys are all ridiculous. You guys are pretty much all adults. Irregardless IS a word. Suck it up and get over it. Come on.

  30. David Bond -  August 13, 2015 - 9:57 pm

    “Irregardless” is a mish-mash of two similar words, Irrespective and Regardless.

    “We will go, regardless of the weather” . . . .OK
    “We will go, irrespective of the weather”. . . .OK
    “We will go, irregardless of the weather”. . . .WRONG

    • Andrea_J -  August 17, 2015 - 1:13 pm

      Beautifully written! *Claps Hands while standing!*

    • Chase -  August 18, 2015 - 8:09 am

      Actually, all three are correct. The third simply means something different than the first two. The problem is that people say irregardless when they mean regardless. It’s programmed somewhere in peoples minds that they need to say ir- before regard to indicate no regard. However, their mind also knows irregard isn’t a word, so they finish and end up saying something that is the opposite of what they mean.

      So the reality is anyone that has ever said “irregardless” isn’t a word was the one that was incorrect. However, the person that used irregardless probably used it incorrectly.

      Regardless of what you may think, I will use it irregardless of the audience ;)

  31. HohoKa -  August 13, 2015 - 8:40 pm

    Hi all of you pedants,
    It is becoming more true about the fact that usage is
    becoming the measure for whether a word is adopted or approved.
    I am not happy with the way ‘PREROGATIVE’ is being mutated to
    ‘PERROGATIVE’ simply because no-one knows the correct pronunciation.
    Thankx HoHOKa

    • MxS -  August 17, 2015 - 12:43 pm

      Funny – I borrowed a library book recently in which someone had crossed out the correct spelling of “prerogative” and written “perogative” in the margin. Fortunately, it was in pencil so I was able to erase the “correction.”

    • ROBIN LAMUR -  September 14, 2015 - 7:47 am



  32. Kimani Kariuki -  August 13, 2015 - 9:11 am

    It’s a word, alright, but one the irritates when used, or rather when misused; basically, all I have come across abuse it, knowingly or unknowingly I do not know!

  33. lisette -  August 13, 2015 - 9:08 am

    is irregardless a word? yes because people do not understand that it is not grammatically correct (should be regardless) therefore it became commonplace. this does not make it a correct word.

  34. E -  August 13, 2015 - 7:18 am

    While you can have your preferred terminology, if a portion of a population uses a term and agrees on its meaning then it is, to them “correct”. Who the heck are you as an outsider to tell them it’s wrong. Language is highly subjective and changing all the time. Just because your socioeconomic class, geographic locality, or other group of people uses a specific grammar trait doesn’t make it any more wrong or right than another’s.

    Take the old favorite of not ending a sentence with a preposition. While it is a “rule” many of us know, who actually follows that in normal usage? Does that mean we are wrong? We are actively deciding NOT to say “to what school will you be going” because to us that sounds weird and rules have changed.

    Don’t make up prescriptivist rules and apply them to different groups of people you don’t understand.

  35. Shane -  August 13, 2015 - 6:59 am

    Four points:

    1.) Of course “irregardless” is a word, simply because if people use it, it enters the English language, just as every word as done.


    2.) There is really no good reason to ever use the word “irregardless,” since the word “regardless” means the same thing (without the confusion of the double negative) and is so close to being the same exact word that it hardly even fulfills the basic function of being a synonym.

    3.) It’s perfectly fine to have new words for something already described by another word – synonyms enrich the language and allow for more pointed diction, but this only works if the synonyms are completely different words, like “angry” and “mad.” Given that “regardless” and “irregardless” are practically the same word, and that one of them has the complication of its double negative causing it to technically mean the opposite of what is intended when used, there is really no good reason to ever use “irregardless.”

    4.) It has been suggested that one may want to use “irregardless” for emphasis, I suppose to mean “REALLY regardless.” Though I see how it could be used that way, it seems like a weak defense: surely there are better ways to provide emphasis than with a confused, clunky, redundant word like “irregardless.” What, shall we start saying, “boy, that man was just so evil, he was unsoulless!”

    • Turtle -  September 8, 2015 - 5:10 pm

      I don’t think that just because people use a word makes it a word. People use the word ‘funner’ all the time and it is NOT a word.

  36. Sam -  August 13, 2015 - 4:15 am

    I like how any discussion of language in an allegedly intellectual forum usually turns into a game of ‘search for the spelling/grammar errors in other people’s posts’. As if that completely negates anything else they may have written. Irregardless is a word because it’s in use. English is an ever-changing language and it changes because people use it, not by any person or group’s will. Believing that you know better than the natural evolution of language is hubris that makes you sound like a chump.

  37. Sean -  August 12, 2015 - 3:49 pm


  38. Melvin P. Arbuckle -  August 12, 2015 - 2:31 pm

    No, irregardless is not a word; google isn’t a verb, either, but people use it that way. Boo hoo hoo, I cannot control how another speaks… waaaaah.

    Grow up and accept the fact that you cannot control what others do or say. Think of it this way, at least the people spouting grammar that makes you cringe are busy making you cringe instead of driving drunk or practicing cannibalism… they could be cooking you in a pot. Now grow up.

  39. Jordan -  August 12, 2015 - 1:35 pm

    I think if regardless is a word in then so should irregardless

  40. Alan Rhoads -  August 12, 2015 - 11:36 am

    I personally think all you irunresponsible co-conspirators are wrong and that irregardless is a word irregardless of what you think!

  41. Dan -  August 12, 2015 - 10:31 am

    If it’s used often enough, then it’s a word. Counterantiundisirregardless, the intended meaning contradicts the true meaning based on its formation. Just because it’s a word based on some arbitrary definition doesn’t mean it should ever be used.

  42. Frustration -  August 11, 2015 - 9:57 pm

    I’d genuinely love the opportunity to tape most of your hands over your mouths, save a select few. The remarks in this comments section, most of which I assume are made by adults, are utterly obnoxious. I came here to skim over an intellectual debate. Instead I found a horde of literate snobs with sticks up their asses and sherry on their breath fussing over what precious few care about anyhow.

    Irregardless is a word, however grammatically incorrect it is. Simply because the majority of you don’t want it to be a word does not mean it will magically vanish from the average person’s vocabulary.

    What is considered incorrect today will be deemed correct tomorrow, such is the evolution of language.

    Grow up, would you?

    • CFWhitman -  August 12, 2015 - 12:55 pm

      Well, I haven’t participated in or really even read the discussion. However, I can guess where the problem lies. The word ‘irregardless’ can never really be technically correct while at the same time meaning what it is generally understood to mean. It’s a self-contradiction. Though it is a word, it’s not a word that can be used both practically and correctly. Thus, it’s better to simply avoid it.

    • Jea -  August 12, 2015 - 3:50 pm

      It makes me so sad to see that broken slang is not merely graciously tolerated or overlooked in efforts to not be rude to the ignorant speaker; but moreover is now being adopted in a way that concedes cultural defeat. We as a nation should be lifting and encouraging our people and standards, not lowering the status quo to new lows. Shameful.

    • bertharris -  August 13, 2015 - 1:19 am

      yes. most experts agree that irregardless as a word is used most likely in connotative fashion.

    • Terri -  August 13, 2015 - 8:36 am

      Not, it’s not a word. Those who do not fully appreciate the meaning of ‘regardless’ add a prefix thinking they are adding emphasis. If someone considers it a word, he or she has the responsibility to provide an additional definition beyond the definition of ‘regardless’.

    • Dale -  August 13, 2015 - 10:16 am

      With all this said, I would just like all concerned parties to consider the possibility of someone using the word irregardless of its literal meaning and confusing those to whom they speak.

    • Buildmaster Axel -  August 13, 2015 - 3:59 pm

      Irregardless IS a word.

    • JP -  August 13, 2015 - 5:17 pm

      With all respect, the problem is not that this has become a word or that it represents an evolution in the English language.

      I quite agree with you that evolution and change is normal and even healthy for a language. Think of all the things and words to describe these things we have today as a result of our language’s growth. I even appreciate that words like “incent” have now been accepted as more efficient means of expressing the idea of incentivizing.

      The problem with this word is not it’s existence, but rather, the fact that its accepted definition is meaningless and contradictory. What I mean here is that I grudgingly admit there is nothing wrong with using this word if one intends to convey a meaning of “not without regard” or even “with regard.”

      Unfortunately, what most people mean when they use this word is simply “without regard,” which is not what the word structure means when the “ir” prefix is added to it.

      While this may seem like a trivial point, it actually goes to the long-term usefulness and survival of the language if we accept and even promote the use of words that can have two contradictory meanings simultaneously.

      Consider the following, if someone started adding “non” to the word “unharmful”, but then used the resultant word, “nonunharmful” as a synonym for “unharmful” and this became an accepted word and definition in the language how are you going to feel about taking a medicine that is labeled “nonunharmful?” Which definition applies? Is the medicine not unharmful (ie harmful) or is it still safe to take?

      …and in this way the language becomes meaningless.

    • verginia v -  August 14, 2015 - 12:53 am

      i love your comment. Yes, those grammarian snobs.. ha ha ha. For me, I could care less.

      • Sara Knight -  August 17, 2015 - 12:19 pm

        I don’t quite understand your message. You say, “I could care less.” What does this mean?

        If you could care more, that says to me that you don’t really care.

        If you could care less, that means that you care a lot.

        Perhaps the message you are communicating is “I could not care less.”

    • Michael -  August 14, 2015 - 2:16 am

      Language does evolve over time, but some deviations from the norm should be categorised as flawed.
      “I didn’t do nothing.” implies “I did something”, but is intended to mean the opposite.
      “Misunderestimated” implies that you can underestimate something correctly, but you can’t.

      I would consider “Irregardless of” to be in the same category, as it implies “without disregard to”, but means the opposite.

    • Ingrid Arran -  August 14, 2015 - 9:30 am

      I love this!

    • Rems -  August 14, 2015 - 3:14 pm

      Thank you. Exactly.

    • JL -  August 15, 2015 - 10:30 am

      Though I would not tar and feather someone over a grammatical mistake, I too make them, I am not a fan of a “word” being granted validity just because enough ignorant people use it. The term for such words is ‘slang.’ It is an insecure person who must bully an error home rather than admit they are wrong. (I am not referring to anyone here, I simply mean in general.)

      Everyone should strive to improve themselves, not recruit others for the sake of proving the wrong to be the right by sheer numbers. Yet more and more this is the case today. Arguments are ‘won’ by intimidating the opponent into submission. Shout the loudest, vilify your opponent in the eyes of the masses and you too can win your argument without debate or sound evidence.

      I will continue to make mistakes and I might have made one in this post which I did not catch. However, I will not argue it is correct if it is not.

    • aesop -  August 15, 2015 - 3:44 pm

      Okay Frustration. Tell us how YOU are different from the people you decry. Take a look in the mirror control freak.

    • correct -  August 15, 2015 - 7:45 pm

      i am with you there

    • Danielle -  August 16, 2015 - 9:17 am

      How about add this one to the list of non-words that LOTS of people use? Reoccuring instead of recurring. I don’t often see it in print, but hear it on a regular basis. Makes me nuts!

    • Bryan -  August 16, 2015 - 2:17 pm

      If I say it and you understand it then it’s a word. Just like converse VS. conversate IF I SAY IT and you UNDERSTAND IT.

      Then it’s a word.

    • Deacon Solomon -  August 16, 2015 - 5:45 pm

      Actually it’s not a matter of maturity. It’s a matter of paying attention to what one says in order to avoid being misunderstood. You seem to think correct diction is a sign of snobbery. It is, and it isn’t. Those who use constructions such as ‘irregardless’ signal to those about them that the speaker is at best only semi-literate.

      I use “those about them” to indicate ‘everyone within earshot’. So when the speaker says ‘irregardless,’ everyone within earshot knows one of two things about the speaker: 1) He wants to come on as someone who knows the language and speaks with authority. 2) He is actually a pretentious fraud who doesn’t know the language and therefore may or may not be a dumbo who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      The perception others take from your behavior, your language, is yours to choose. I use a dictionary regularly to improve my usage. I read ‘good’ books and use what I learn from them to improve my usage. In other words, I STUDY the language and if you have career ambitions beyond those of a plumber or a small businessman, you, too, will STUDY the language.

      The upstroke is that when you STUDY the language, you learn to appreciate the power of words far more than you formerly did. They say “clothes make the man,” but it isn’t really true. The quality of a man’s speech gets him respect from those who really matter in this world.

    • Wal -  August 16, 2015 - 6:24 pm

      Antony is spot on…Ïrregardless might at best be considered an oxymoron.
      It ends up meaning Not Regardless….the opposite of its intended meaning.
      It bugs the bejinkers out of me along with a lot of modern sloppy English in use which simply indicates the slow slide of society towards illiteracy. “Should of”, “Youse”, “Öne of the only” and a hundred other howlers in current use.
      Frustration: you need to take a pill and have a good lie down.

    • Janette -  August 17, 2015 - 7:21 am

      I have always considered “irregardless” a non-word. Just recently I heard it used by a talk-show host and it drove me up a wall. I am an English minor and a stickler for correct use of the language so I would like to have this word remove from any official document or correspondence. I have no problem if someone wants to use it in an informal, colloquial setting.

  43. Dave -  August 11, 2015 - 10:17 am

    You folks are literally driving me up a wall!

    • David -  August 13, 2015 - 11:03 am

      @Dave … You’re not seriously trying to start a new argument over the use of “literally” are you?

    • bernice -  August 13, 2015 - 2:22 pm

      OOOh! I sincerely hope you are able to hang on and not fall! I’m literally dying of worry for you!

    • Jane -  August 13, 2015 - 4:35 pm


    • Mac -  August 14, 2015 - 5:53 am

      Another overly misused word- “literal”, or literally. It means it actually happened or is happening. To be “literally driving me up a wall” you must be in a car or other conveyance AND be somewhere near the ceiling, because you LITERALLY/ACTUALLY drove up the wall.
      If you literally laughed your head off, you would be dead and not typing on this forum.

    • Tim Yagle -  August 14, 2015 - 5:17 pm

      good. :-)

    • michael spilka -  August 14, 2015 - 5:45 pm

      I guess it wood drive me up the wall.Nothing less to regard !

    • Pookah -  August 14, 2015 - 10:30 pm

      Wow! What kind of car or wagon are they using? I never saw one that could literally drive up a wall.

    • Z -  August 16, 2015 - 8:32 am

      I don’t think you know what the word ‘literally’ means, and if you do, I would like to see proof of you driving up a wall.

    • Dillan -  August 16, 2015 - 4:43 pm


  44. Geoff -  August 11, 2015 - 10:07 am

    Irregardless is not a word. You can be Irresponsible but I believe, having spent time in a country where the language is similar but mostly different, that the word Irregardless came to being because of the word Irresponsible. So, in my book, Irregardless is not a word. The word, if you use it in a sentence, is regardless. I have heard people say that and it’s one of those things that drives me nuts.

    • Gianna -  August 12, 2015 - 1:40 pm

      As difficult as it is for me to write this: Irregardless is a word. Ain’t is a word.

      But. Intelligent. People. Don’t. Use. Them.

    • Nathan -  August 13, 2015 - 9:14 am

      Thoughts on “inflammable”?

    • Buildmaster Axel -  August 13, 2015 - 4:01 pm

      It’s not a word in YOUR book.

    • Hailey -  August 13, 2015 - 5:31 pm

      As the article specifies, the word literally means «NOT without regard», so it could have originally meant to be a synonym of «heedful». In that case, irregardless and regardless are misused antonyms. It’s what I like to think…

    • Kate_H -  August 14, 2015 - 1:57 am

      Irregardless is a word. Irresponisible and Irregardless are two completely different words.

    • Z -  August 16, 2015 - 8:33 am

      If it’s in a dictionary it’s a word plain and simple, get over it.

  45. Herb -  August 11, 2015 - 6:45 am


    Such a wonderful discussion.

    For some of the population, They use the words they use. Period.

    For the purist… well, ‘nuf said.

    some folks like the sound of irregardless as it rolls off the tongue.

    And then there are those who really don’t care.

    • bernice -  August 13, 2015 - 2:25 pm

      …and don’t forget those who “could care less.”

    • zeroday1 -  August 16, 2015 - 10:01 am

      How about the word irrespective? Should we remove that from the english language too?

      Whether implied or directly defined——-I think most people with common sense would catch one’s drift if such words are used…

  46. bubble -  August 11, 2015 - 1:11 am

    i think it is a word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Buildmaster Axel -  August 13, 2015 - 4:02 pm

      ‘nuf said.

    • 2 chainz -  August 13, 2015 - 8:42 pm

      cuz it is

    • Tim Yagle -  August 14, 2015 - 5:16 pm

      just because people say it does not mean it is a word. News anchors and politicians are notorious for making up words when they are trying to sound smart and eloquent, It is not in the dictionary;only in dictionary.com. I always change irregardless to regardless in stories unless it is in a quote. Same with towards. Not a word. Just toward. People might say it all the time, but that does not mean it is a word,Of course, sources like AP and other stylebooks might change their entries to include such non-words under the guise of keeping up with what it considers modern usage. But just because many people use it does not make it right or credible.

  47. Antony -  August 10, 2015 - 6:26 pm

    I think people have been confusing the words ‘regardless’ and ‘irrespective’.

    • Andrew -  August 13, 2015 - 3:15 am

      Yes, very true.

      Definition.com says ‘Irrespective’ is:

      “without regard to something else…”

      This means we are dealing with an issue that people who use the word are actually getting mixed up.
      They might say that it sounds right, but that is simply because of this word!

    • Littlefawn -  August 13, 2015 - 10:47 am

      Correct, Antony. Very well stated. Now if we could implement use by mass population we would indeed obtain resolution.

    • bb -  August 16, 2015 - 7:00 am

      Thanks. Now I’ll check out the difference…..

  48. Alex -  August 10, 2015 - 5:16 pm

    English is very much a living language, which means new words are constantly added, and old ones fall out of use. Irregardless is now a word where it wasnt 100 years ago. this is completely normal for a living language.

    • CFWhitman -  August 12, 2015 - 1:05 pm

      Well, what you say about a living language is true generally speaking. However, what makes ‘irregardless’ problematic in this regard is that its intended meaning violates the meaning of its individual parts when broken down according to the rules of the language. There is no changing that. Most changes in a living language don’t do that, and thus don’t become the subject of one hundred year debates.

      Of course it could eventually become accepted that it meaning the opposite of what it seems to mean is just one of those quirks, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Right now it seems stuck at that point where it is recognized to exist, but is considered poor usage according to the strictest style guides.

  49. Jessica Pan -  August 10, 2015 - 1:55 pm

    Thanks for taking the time to write the article!

  50. Sam Hughes -  August 10, 2015 - 11:45 am

    No. Regardless is the correct terminology. Irregardless is redundant.

  51. Eron -  August 10, 2015 - 11:15 am

    Oh language… Language changes. We don’t have to like the direction it moves in. If this is something that irks you, there’s a simple solution: Don’t use the word yourself.

    This certainly isn’t the only “mistake” we make when speaking the English language… Advancement in these cases often has little to do with correctness and more to do with idiosyncrasies gaining popularity.

    If you’re a teacher and don’t want your students using it, then take that up with your students and show them the logic. “It’s not a word” doesn’t suffice when they can pull out a dictionary and prove you wrong.

    • Gianna -  August 12, 2015 - 5:25 pm

      This is not a matter of language changing. This is a matter of using language incorrectly. While I don’t condone correcting anyone’s grammar mistakes to humiliate him, I have no problem discreetly doing so and I find most people very receptive. No one one wants to intentionally sounds like a fool.

  52. David -  August 9, 2015 - 8:30 pm

    The article says “The term has been in use in English for over a century”…
    Why is it still being debated? Regardless of its structure, it has become an American/English word through continuous usage. If the arrogant Brits complain they can avoid it… quietly.
    I mean a stupid word like ‘twerk’ was added to the Oxford dictionary after only 20 years of common usage; Oxford says this about it:
    “The Oxford Dictionaries blog says “the most likely theory is that it is an alteration of work, because that word has a history of being used in similar ways, with dancers being encouraged to “work it”. (“Twerk it” is a common phrase as well.) The “t” could be a result of blending with another word such as twist or twitch.”[3] There is evidence from ethnographic interviews in New Orleans that the term began as street language in New Orleans with the rise of the local hip hop music known as bounce.[4] Since the late 1990s, twerking was associated[by whom?] with bounce music of Southern hip hop and was disseminated via mainstream hip hop videos and popular video-sharing sites since the mid-2000s. In 2013, twerk was added to the Oxford Dictionary Online.[5] According to Oxford dictionary, the word has been around for 20 years. The word was a runner-up in the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2013″.

    • justaxme -  August 10, 2015 - 8:56 am

      People, people, people!! Read the associated paragraph above; it’s a word. I use it to bug the hell out of a buddy who is a grammarian; and it usually works.

      More to the point; since when did the word “ask” become “ax”? I doubt you’d hear these people say “I’m wearing a monster’s max to the Halloween party.” Now that drives me (and most people I know) to distraction!!

    • endo_alley -  August 10, 2015 - 11:15 am

      George W Bush used the word irregardless. As in “This action was justified irregardless of the nucular threat.” It is not a direct quote, but just an approximation. And I don’t mean to be chiding the ex president. I quite enjoyed the active vocabulary.

    • Andrew -  August 10, 2015 - 12:46 pm

      Disregardless of the above comment, I think we can still attempt to correct the mistakes of the past. I mean, some people still stay ain’t ain’t a word, and it’s probably older than irregarless.

      • feather haiku blangiardo -  August 13, 2015 - 12:33 am

        ^^^ you’re hilarious. best comment i’ve read so far. friend me on facebook.

    • Mark -  August 10, 2015 - 8:38 pm

      It’s nothing more than a self-contained redundancy. Why debate it? It is what it is. It’s kind of fun to say, too. ;D

    • Steve Mack -  August 11, 2015 - 9:08 am

      It’s not just so-called “arrogant Brits” who complain about it, practically all American editors will delete the word from texts too. It doesn’t appear even once in either the American or British corpuses according to Google’s Ngram Viewer. All this doesn’t mean that it isn’t a word, just that it isn’t a formal word.

      Even the Oxford Dictionary has an entry for “irregardless”. You need to realize though that not all words that exist in the dictionaries can be used in all situations.This is the critical distinction. “Irregardless” is suitable for informal situations only and of course, preferably in an American context where people will recognize the word. For example, a British person would not tend to use the word “drugstore” to describe what they term a “chemists” or a “pharmacy”, it may be connected to illegal drugs in their consciousness, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t accept it as an American variation.

      A word like “twerk” was invented in order to label the African-American version of a traditional African dance, a word which was lost to history in the US. So there was a space for this new word to come into the language. On the other hand, “irregardless” is a word that already had two synonyms which were in common use: “irrespective” and “regardless”. This is the reason why it is not considered standard English.

      My conclusion is that, “irregardless” is indeed a word, due to the fact that so many people use it. However, it is an informal/spoken word and not a formal/written word because of the fact that it has two perfectly meaningful synonyms.

      As for your cheap nationalistic pop against the British, I don’t think British people see the word enough to be irritated by its presence because they don’t use it at all. They never see the word in print, and they may only hear it when watching Hollywood movies, YouTube videos or American series. It hardly exists in British consciousness for them to be upset about it. Not to mention the fact that the British don’t have the monopoly on arrogance. In my experience teaching English in Japan, many Americans were arrogant about the use of American spelling and vocabulary. I even saw American teachers flat-out calling Standard International English spelling “wrong” and only accepting Reformed American Spelling. Think about what you’re saying before deliberately trying to offend an entire country.

    • Kitty -  August 12, 2015 - 9:23 am

      You mean “irregardless” of its structure.

    • April -  August 12, 2015 - 1:59 pm

      Lol David. Your whole argument was moot as soon as you opted for “regardless” in your explanation: “Regardless of its structure…”. Why not use the ridiculous and inaccurate form of this word if you’re pro- irregardless? Just feels wrong to the core, huh?

    • Taxedtoomuch -  August 14, 2015 - 1:47 pm

      No, it is not a word and I have heard it enough over the last fifty years so I plan to punch the next person who utters it, in my presence, in
      the nose!

  53. rolf -  August 9, 2015 - 5:22 pm

    irregardless is a word

    • Andrew -  August 10, 2015 - 12:49 pm

      Disregardless, another “word” I hear that drives me crazy is dethaw. That’s the opposite of defrost, but some people like to use it when they mean defrost.

    • David -  August 12, 2015 - 8:40 am

      True, but not relevant. Its a double-negative and thus shows that the one who used it is stupid and/or uneducated.

      • Andrew -  August 13, 2015 - 3:41 am

        Who on earth ever said double negatives were stupid?! (let alone the person saying it!!!)

        It is in the heart of education to be able to use double negatives.

        It is mentioned that ‘irregardless’ means ‘not without regard’. That is perfectly sane and educated, surely you have used indirect double negatives like this before?

        Yes, yourdictionary.com says, “Double negatives are not encouraged in English because they are poor grammar and they can be confusing…”

        But that is aimed at new english speakers who need not be confused. Double negatives are a very intelligent device when used properly and for those who speak english fluently should be encouraged to experiment with this useful technique.

        Surely when someone says to you “there is no other way,” you can legitimately reply, “there isn’t no other way.”
        Hang on, we have a double negative here. But does it work? Yes! Is the person using it stupid and/or uneducated? NO!

        It is an absurdly ridiculous claim that a person using a double negative is stupid and/or uneducated.

        Wait a minute, if absurd can be defined as “untrue” and ridiculous can be defined as “absurd,” then we have another double negative. But it has been intelligently used. They were both adjectives in different forms.

        So then may we conclude that having different forms of two negatives is perfectly normal (to avoid “not not” which is what you are naively referring to)? And don’t we find this exact embodiment within the word we are examining? Yes! We do!

        We have ‘ir’ as a prefix and ‘less’ as a suffix. Both are separate all together. And if you are still not convinced this is the case, even their meanings are different.
        Two separate terms.
        ir = not
        less = without

        So now you may ask, but the example you used is different. But haven’t I proved that double negatives are acceptable and don’t mean that the subject is stupid and/or uneducated?

        The real question you should be asking, instead of foolishly concluding that “thus shows that the one who used it is stupid and/or uneducated” which is a rather penurious call, whether this word (not the person saying the word) is a good use of the double negative. We must not get caught up in “thus they are stupid” without even considering what that actually means.

        • Amazed -  November 9, 2015 - 10:06 pm

          This is a “penurious” attempt to prove the unprovable through paper-thin argumentation which barely makes any sense. “Absurdly untrue” is a double negative because “absurdly” is a (grammatical) negative? In a parallel universe perhaps. At a stretch, this collocation may be taken as a redundancy. I sincerely hope you are neither an Englush teacher nor in a position to influence any person’s acquisition of English as a first or second language.

  54. Nita -  August 9, 2015 - 12:48 pm

    What’s sad about language, but something with which I’ve reluctantly had to come to terms, is that incorrect language used long enough and consistently enough by the public at large becomes adopted/approved by those who control what’s interpreted as acceptable/correct and then listed in dictionaries as legitimate. I really hate that.

    • Andrew Bryan -  August 11, 2015 - 6:00 am

      I would be reluctant to live in a world where language was so static and prescriptive that it could not evolve and develop. If Shakespeare was restricted to only using correct and existing words, the English language would be at least 1700 words poorer.

      • Steve Kasian -  August 15, 2015 - 3:13 pm

        Andrew Bryan: So, are you trying to say that you’d be apt to kill yourself in such a world?

    • Qodex -  August 11, 2015 - 8:13 am

      “used long enough and consistently enough by the public”

      Where do you think ALL language comes from?

    • Steve Mack -  August 11, 2015 - 9:14 am

      The “present progressive” or “present continuous” aspect was once considered an aberration. It was not accepted as acceptable at one point, but it became a legitimate even standard verb form.

      gif wé hæfdedon þín standon wé cweðen swa…
      (if we all had your attitude, we’d all be speaking like this)…

      • George -  August 13, 2015 - 12:21 pm

        Wes thu hal!

    • David Swanson -  August 11, 2015 - 5:31 pm

      I’m with you, Nita!

    • Yas -  August 12, 2015 - 6:42 am

      Ditto. You’ve expressed something that I’ve long felt (since childhood, actually) concisely. I really hate that too. Unfortunately the development of language (just as everything else nowadays) seems to veer less and less to the greater benefit and understanding of man… but rather to lowest common denominator and to that which is … asininely regressive.

    • Joel -  August 12, 2015 - 9:24 pm

      Oh now I’m feeling nauseous (sic.); I would be nauseated…. common usage changes language.

    • HohoKa -  August 13, 2015 - 8:38 pm

      Hi Nita
      It is true about usage becoming the measure for whether a word is adopted or approved.
      I am not happy with the way ‘PREROGATIVE’ is being mutated to
      ‘PERROGATIVE’ simply because no-one knows the correct pronunciation.
      Thankx HoHOKa

  55. Gary Davis -  August 9, 2015 - 2:49 am

    Surely it’s a pathetically bad mix of irrespective and regardless and shows at least confusion on the speaker’s part, if not complete ignorance.

    Since ‘regard’ already has a suffix denoting the negative, it and other words have no need of a further prefix too, otherwise we could equally end with other madly and badly constructed words such as ‘irregularless’ too or even ‘uncareless’ which would be total destruction of a basic rule, let alone our language.

    This is clearly only American ignorance of grammar at work, such as in their other ridiculous concoction “I could care less” suggesting that they still have more care to give, when in fact they mean the opposite “They Could NOT care less” meaning no care left whatsoever.

    • Gary Davis -  August 9, 2015 - 3:13 am

      I would just like to add that as an accredited IELTS examiner by Cambridge University, that should any candidate appear before me and use this abomination of a word, I would instantly reduce their band score.

      I would also add that in case of complaints that – ‘I couldn’t care less’ – as opposed to that other ignorant American saying ‘I could care less” …

      In which case I hope they cared more about speaking proper English!

      • Lenny -  August 10, 2015 - 9:34 am

        Of course, having pegged yourself as literally BRITISH English, I wonder if you speak like the speech-impediment that an English Accent so often amounts to, with all vowels being only OPTIONALLY distinguishable from one another, where a “th” can be acceptably pronounced as “f”, and too often, the letter “t” can be silent.

      • Atto -  August 11, 2015 - 8:08 am

        There is the literal “I couldn’t care less,” and the sarcastic “I could care less.” Both are correct, irregardless of what you choose to think. (well, that irr… was painful to write!)

        • John Bonaccorsi, Phila -  August 15, 2015 - 1:37 pm

          False. The sarcastic form is “As if I could care less.” The masses have made a botch of it.

          • John Bonaccorsi, Phila -  August 15, 2015 - 1:38 pm

            And it’s not sarcastic; it’s flippant.

      • Susan Anderson -  August 11, 2015 - 11:50 am

        It’s my understanding that certified IELTS examiners assess writing, as well as speaking.

        With that in mind, your boastful, “that as an accredited IELTS examiner by Cambridge University” statement, your own ‘band score’ should be reduced for your verbose writing.

        Please note also that in your sentence, “should any ‘candidate’ appear before me and use this abomination of a word, I would instantly reduce ‘their’ band score.” Shouldn’t it read ‘his’ or ‘her’ band score?

        “Physician, heal thyself!”

        • Randster -  August 16, 2015 - 10:32 am

          Yes! Contradiction in terms, noticed by someone else.

        • Amazed -  November 9, 2015 - 10:13 pm

          No Susan, in fact in British English “their” is used precisely to do away with the need for “his/her”.

      • Sean -  August 11, 2015 - 10:53 pm

        Much appreciated post.

      • George -  August 12, 2015 - 5:21 am

        Shouldn’t you have said: “…that should any candidate appear before me and use this abomination of a word, I would instantly reduce his band score.”

      • Satish Shirali -  August 17, 2015 - 7:23 am

        I agree with Susan Anderson’s comment on your first paragraph that “their” should have been replaced by “his or her”.
        Besides, I find your second paragraph difficult to unravel.

    • Susan Anderson -  August 11, 2015 - 11:31 am

      Your second paragraph, “Since ‘regard’ already has a suffix…let alone our language” is verbose–a “run-off-at-the-mouth” sentence. Perhaps you should create multiple sentences in this passage instead of your long-winded choice.

      I love England! I lived in Pateley Bridge, North Yorkshire for 3 years; I would very much like to witness you correcting a Yorkshireman’s ‘English.’ It would be ill-advised, to say the least.

      There exists a variety of unusual (non-London) vocabulary throughout England, Scotland, and Wales. Maybe you should correct Great Britain’s vocabulary choices before attacking the vocabulary choices throughout America’s different regions.

  56. Kathy -  August 8, 2015 - 9:11 am

    For me, this is in the same class as the all too frequent use by Americans of the illogical “I could care less” when what they actually mean (and what most British english-speakers would say instinctively) is “I couldn’t care less” (which is logical).

    @Sarah below:
    “ain’t” is NOT a non-word – just old english for “isn’t”. For example:
    “It ain’t necessarily so…” [It is not necessarily so...].
    I suspect you have in mind something like:
    “Ain’t that just the truth”; but this still makes sense to me as “Is that not the truth” uttered as a statement of agreement about something that is beyond challenge, rather than as a question ["Is that not true?"] in which I imply that you may just have raised doubts in my mind.

    • Steve Mack -  August 11, 2015 - 9:34 am

      Nice response to Sophie, Kathy. I’d like to add a little more detail to your answer.

      The word “ain’t” was originally only a contraction of “am not” and in its earliest form (dated from 1618) could only be used with the first person (I).

      Very quickly though, (by 1696) it came also to be used as a contraction for “are not”, and then by 1710 is seen a a contraction of “is not”. The 13th to the late 16th century was a period of time when the English were experimenting with various contractions and these spread quickly in all parts of the English speaking world. The earliest enclitic contraction (’tis / ’twas) is dated to 1250 and the earliest proclitic (it’s / we’re) contraction is dated to about 1450.

      In modern standard English, the pronoun “I” is the only pronoun where we can’t use a contraction formed by the verb “be” and “not”. As we saw earlier, t’was only much later when “ain’t” came to be used for a wider variety of contractions and came to be vilified as “non-standard”, while the others gained respectability.

      I’m not – I ain’t
      she’s not – she isn’t
      you’re not – you aren’t
      it’s not – it isn’t

    • Sean -  August 11, 2015 - 11:41 pm

      Ahhhhhhhhhh I had to say something. “Ain’t” can cancel out and jumble up or simply rearrange as many words as it pleases, as far along into the sentence it needs to to make sense. Lol

      “Ain’t that just the truth”
      “Ain’t that the truth”

      Emphasize/italicize in speech and reading the word ‘that’ and think afterwards……….. Is that not the truth. Rhetoric! Taking every other example on the planet into consideration, I support my second statement. Ain’ts a boss!!!!

      Whoooooooshh all in jest & only because you missed a comma. :) MURICA! ♥

      They need a few html tags or b i u enabled for comments to spice things up a bit for grammar experts (not me, I rarely write). I take that back, just enable italicize (bold and underline would get outta control). hahah

      This is Dictionary.com, people! Get to work!

      • Sean -  August 11, 2015 - 11:49 pm

        Underlined – uh oh or bold …. word <— Remove spaces for italics for whoever doesn't know already.

        • Sean -  August 11, 2015 - 11:56 pm

          oh dear God it detects a tag and deletes it, regardless of spaces or symbols. So no math on Dictionary.com :( . Just look up “italicize html” -This is for any reader. Ugh. K done. lol

  57. Dan -  August 8, 2015 - 3:36 am

    Not that I can recall ever using it myself, I have always presumed irregardless meant ‘ignorant of being regardless’. So say for example “the company cut the workers’ wages regardless of their demands,” (to me) that would suggest the cutting of the wages took place with acknowledgement that the workers didn’t want it to happen. If you said “the company cut the workers’ wages irregardless of their demands,” (to me) the meaning is slightly changed in a way that suggests the cutting of the workers’ wages happened without acknowledgement that the workers’ didn’t want it to happen. Evidently I have fabricated this entire meaning in my head as (after some quick research just now) I can’t find any similar definitions of this word that I now know doesn’t exist which is quite interesting (for me anyway).

    Whatever your opinion though I can not believe how anal people are about our language. If words were never changed and used incorrectly and adapted etc then we wouldn’t have the vocabulary that we have now. Irregardless could be given a meaning if we wanted it to have one, just not the same meaning as regardless. There are plenty of words that have so called prefixes and suffixes that are redundant (flammable vs inflammable for example; both are valid but one has an unnecessary prefix). If you are writing legal or medical documents then I can understand but in every day scribbling I don’t see why people get so stuck up on things. Quite a lot of the poetry and literature we have wouldn’t exist if some of the people here worked in publishing!

  58. K -  August 7, 2015 - 2:37 pm

    It’s funny seeing Americans trying to teach English to the English… ‘Irregardless’ is a word…Yeehaw!

    • Luciana -  August 7, 2015 - 4:29 pm

      I know! It is just so surprising that ‘irregardless’ is a word! I mean, I am only 10!

    • Senator_Kang -  August 8, 2015 - 12:50 am

      What a strange thing to say. The English language was not wholly fabricated by the people who are called the English, British, or citizens of the U.K., or any of that. Fact is, American English is widely accepted as more closely resembling (in pronunciation) the original English spoken in England, than what is uttered there, now.

      Yeah, ask a linguist from the U.K. They (they English) got all uppity and divided by class, compared to the fairly classless (in comparison) U.S.

      (Parenthetical Pause: Bear with me, I’m calling you “English,” OK? I haven’t called you, “Brits,” yet, OK? And I am keeping “Limies” well far out of this discussion.)

      That’s why the R.P. that the Queen (and her ilk) utters is so clipped and nasal- it was a deliberate change from common English.

      Anyway, the U.S. has as much claim to the English language, in 2015, as anyone else (where it is widely spoken) does. It doesn’t live in a bottle, thank God!

      • McInnis -  August 10, 2015 - 2:16 pm

        With regards to your ‘parenthetical pause’:

        Considering you referred to the UK as a whole, and then emphasised that you were calling us all English, and not Brits, you have technically offended more people than if you had simply called us ‘Brits’. People from Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland generally don’t like to be referred to as ‘English’ (and rightly so).

        On another note, it should be considered that the masses in Britain do not speak that prissy ‘Queen’s English’–it’s more of a trait of certain people from the middle-classes looking to sound posher than they are (though goodness knows why, when it only makes them sound like fools and creates seemingly unshakable stereotypes).

        American English isn’t particularly closer to the ‘original’ (if such a thing can exist in language) English, having been as twisted and bastardised by foreign influence and accent as any other version of English. The US’s multitude of accents are those produced by a melting pot of cultures and settlers from varied European countries (actually, I’ve often noticed that it has a lot of Irish in it, more than British).

      • Susan Anderson -  August 11, 2015 - 9:59 am

        I love you, Senator_Kang! ;-)

    • Gus -  August 8, 2015 - 5:18 pm

      “Irregardless” is the perfect word for the illiterate.

    • Unique -  August 9, 2015 - 10:51 pm

      Irregardless is not a word. There is a negative prefix AND a negative suffix, which means it is a double negative, thus NOT a word.
      It’s kind of like saying “a snake doesn’t not slither.”
      By saying that the negative words cancel out each other, so you’re basically saying “a snake does slither.”
      The same goes for irregardless. The negatives “ir” and “less” cancel each other out, so if anyone should use this “word” they technically aren’t saying what they mean. To sum this up, only say “irregardless” if you want to sound like an idiot.

      • asa -  August 10, 2015 - 7:26 am

        Ah, you mean things like “not inclusive”, “not uncommon” or “not infrequent”..; or do you mean more like “undisclosed”?

        • anon -  August 10, 2015 - 4:41 pm

          “Irregardless” breaks rules that have no logic in grammar, while “not uncommon” points out a specific concept. The latter examples you’ve mentioned fall into a different category of usage than a corruption of a word. “Irregardless” may have become vernacular, but it’s a terrible testimony to how laziness and the lack of desire to educate oneself has become prominent over the years.

        • bob poindexter -  August 12, 2015 - 1:23 am

          asa – Your rebuttal may seem appropriate, but it misses the point. To say “not infrequent” is not a double negative, it carries a perfectly intelligible meaning. In a circumstance where something was expected to be infrequent, but in the current case is not, this may be quite reasonably expressed by the phrase “not infrequent”, as an alternative to saying “It is more frequent than you might think.”

          “Irregardless” is, and always will be, a double negative, and carries the opposite meaning of what was intended.

        • CFWhitman -  August 12, 2015 - 1:26 pm

          Well, there’s an obvious difference between your examples and ‘irregardless.’ In each of your examples, what is meant matches what is said. That is, regardless of how many reversals of meaning are included in the phrase, they work out to what is actually meant. With irregardless, when you work it out, it ought to mean the opposite of what people use it to mean. That makes it awkward at best.

  59. Kelly -  August 7, 2015 - 8:12 am

    The language we grow up with is normal (to us) and those that correct us seem like they are too proper or wrong (to us). Unfortunately, that’s just how language is.

    I’m just a simple engineer but the word “irregardless” is drives me crazy.

    • Simon -  August 9, 2015 - 5:30 am

      Perhaps a more precise question would be: Is irregardless grammatical? It is manifestly a word, depending on one’s definition.

    • warren -  August 9, 2015 - 12:10 pm

      If “irregardless” drives you crazy, how about “irregardlessly”?

      • Ki -  August 10, 2015 - 2:19 pm

        Or ‘irregardlessness’… I quite like the sound of that.

    • Irshad -  August 10, 2015 - 2:19 am

      Kelly the Engineer, your use of words does pronounce that you are an Engineer who does not carte much about grammar

      • Kiri -  August 10, 2015 - 8:08 pm

        It seems like you don’t care much about spelling…

      • Pat -  August 11, 2015 - 7:15 pm

        How does the use of words enunciate Kelly’s lack of grammatical mapping?

  60. John -  August 6, 2015 - 2:36 pm

    My late father always said, “disirregardless.” Seems good to me!

  61. AsapragusTips -  August 6, 2015 - 10:55 am

    So it has two double negatives but they are not the same prefix/suffix. The famous ‘antidiestablishmentarianism’ also has two double negatives but they do not cancel each other out, they merely suggest that ‘the opposite is wrong’ rather than ‘this is correct’. Businesses say they ‘offered a not unfair proposal’ to the trades unions. They don’t mean they issued a fair one, they are just stating that it isn’t what the other party say it isn’t. Language is complicated, or is language not uncomplicated?

    • Kamal -  August 7, 2015 - 2:29 pm

      If they stated that they offered a not unfair proposal, they are saying that the proposal that they offered was in their view fair.

      • Senator_Kang -  August 8, 2015 - 1:11 am

        I have to disagree. If one is to take a person at what that person says, rather than what one supposes that person meant to say, “A not unfair proposal,” is not necessarily a “fair proposal,” it is simply short of being “unfair,” or more accurately, “something else than ‘unfair.’ ”

        Not ugly is not the same as pretty.

        Not un-pretty is not the same as not ugly, either. You see, there is a difference between these words. A person can be “not unkind,” but rather “horrid.”

        How? Well, it’s simple. “She was not simply unkind, she was simply horrid.”

        “Not” fill-in-the-blank “anything,” does not mean that it is the direct opposite of the negation, only.

        Such a negation simply excludes what it is stated to exclude. It does not make a positive case for what IS… it simply says what is not.

        “I was not uncomfortable,” does not mean that I was comfortable. I might have been in severe pain, rather than minor discomfort. I might have been drunk, rather than uncomfortable. I might have been nestled amongst the humming sound of satiny wings, whispers of ethereal angels directly shaking my soul, vibrating my being with the frequencies of heaven’s breath. But I may not have been simply “comfortable,” by proclaiming I was “not being uncomfortable.”

        • Susan Anderson -  August 11, 2015 - 10:01 am

          Well said–now, I love you even more! :-)

        • OFFICIAL -  August 11, 2015 - 12:12 pm

          Irregardless is an ignorant thing to say, regardless of the above rambling, pretentious drivel.

        • Gianna -  August 12, 2015 - 5:46 pm

          If I am comfortable I say so: I’m comfortable. If I’m uncomfortable I say so: I’m uncomfortable. If I’m somewhat uncomfortable but not uncomfortable enough to make an issue, I say: I’m fine. And if someone is actually in excruciating pain and is incapable of saying anything other than: I’m not uncomfortable – I’d say he has a severe communication problem.

        • Gregory -  October 5, 2015 - 6:02 pm

          I hope not to split hairs, but kind and unkind are of the same root word. Ugly and pretty are not; there are many adjectives to fit in between ugly and pretty, two words that may not be universally seen as antithetical to each other.
          If one is in severe pain, they are indeed uncomfortable- even if they’re so much more. The addition of ‘simply’ was your own. Simply or merely kind and comfortable don’t seem to be indicated in the argument.
          There is no wiggle room between ‘fair’ and ‘not unfair’; once one crawls across the border of fairness, they’re officially in the state of unfairness. I’d they continue into oppression, it’s still ‘unfair’.
          The use of such statements as “not uncomfortable” is to insinuate that the comfort was admitted begrudgingly, unexpectedly, or that it was not luxuriant.

    • Kathy -  August 8, 2015 - 8:39 am

      I agree with you – but you seem to be ignoring the article:
      “The prefix ir- means “not,” while the suffix -less means “without,” literally translating to “not without regard.” This, of course, is the opposite of what English speakers generally intend to convey when using this term.”

      I would have no problem with the use of irregardless to mean NOT without regard [e.g. he continued, yet not without regard for their concerns], but as the article says, that is not what users mean.

      And as you imply, antidisestablishment makes complete sense – to be against disestablishment (though not necessarily in favour of establishment).

      • Maena -  August 10, 2015 - 2:30 pm

        If I use the word ‘irregardless’, then ‘not without regard’ is exactly what I mean.

        Don’t tar everyone as using the word wrongly–just look at the common usage of ‘literally’ to mean ‘metaphorically’ (because, yeah, your friend ‘literally’ blew up when he was angry), or ‘terrific’ to refer to something good (rather than something ‘of terror’, as it ought). Then, of course, there is the travesty of those who say that ‘[they] could care less’, when obviously they mean that they ‘couldn’t’ care less, and those who write ‘is all’, when clearly they’re looking for ‘that’s all’. Oh, and people who put an ‘s’ on the end of the word ‘anyway’, as if it makes sense.

        As far as I’m concerned, misusing the word ‘irregardless’ is a beautiful thing in comparison to those other faux pas.

        • CFWhitman -  August 12, 2015 - 1:44 pm

          In the case of ‘terrific,’ it has been long since it has come to mean ‘intense,’ ‘extreme,’ ‘extraordinary,’ or ‘momentous.’ That in turn can imply ‘intensely good’ when it’s used to describe something good. This has been in use far too long by far too many people to be considered incorrect at this point, and its development does not defy logic in the way that your other examples do.

  62. Sarah R -  August 6, 2015 - 10:49 am

    Thinking about this a little bit, I realized that the times I have heard people use “irregardless” is to emphasize the word while they are speaking. While generally I use regardless, I can remember myself doing the same – using irregardless to emphasize it. Having lived my childhood in Texas this is also the general use of the non-word “ain’t” for emphasis. So perhaps this is a pattern in English we are not aware of – the use of double negatives to emphasize the negativity of a statement.

    • Anla -  August 7, 2015 - 4:37 pm

      I’ve often wondered about this, too. I was taught (I’m 34) that the use of double negatives is sloppy and improper. However, I’ve noticed that that they help to stress a sentiment much more than saying it the “proper” way. And of course I can’t think of a good example right now!

    • Sam -  August 9, 2015 - 1:44 pm

      Ain’t IS a word though

  63. Turgid -  August 5, 2015 - 11:13 pm

    It’s obviously arisen from people erroneously blending “regardless” with “irrespective” and is therefore best avoided.

    • anonymous -  August 7, 2015 - 5:20 am


      • Luciana -  August 7, 2015 - 4:30 pm

        Why do you call yourself Anonymous, I mean, just do your real name! I did mine!

    • Senator_Kang -  August 8, 2015 - 1:41 am

      Could be, but there are many “irre” words: irresponsible, irreconcilable, irrefutable… so what if it might be a misuse that does not stem from a direct mistake based on simple confusion between two words, but more of a general callousness in the use of language, akin to “orientate,” being a recognized word (as of 2015- supposedly based on late 19th Cent. French) rather than the correct English word, “orient?” People go to an “orientation” to become correctly “oriented,” not “orientated.” But the dictionary argues differently, now. And yes, it may have been a variation on French, in the late 1800s, but it was not commonly accepted as an English word, until it gained popularity as a misused stem off of the English word “orientation,” recently. So goes language.

      There is also, in the case of “orient” vs. “orientate” a P.C. angle: see “orient v.” vs. “(the) Orient n.”

      • Turgid -  August 12, 2015 - 5:39 pm

        Thanks Senator_Kang, but my point (which was probably implicit rather than explicit) was that “irrespective”, unlike the other “irre” words you quote, has a meaning very close to “regardless”.

        My instinct is still that this is where the confusion arises in people’s minds. I think their brain is telling them to play it safe, to have a bet each way, and they very quickly adopt it as a real word.

        But really, at the end of the day, I guess it’s no more absurd than “flammable” and “inflammable” being interchangeable.

  64. Rayo -  August 5, 2015 - 7:15 pm

    I have never heard the word “irregardless” in my 65 years, only “regardless”.
    Some other words I have never heard are “macculate” and “couth”!!

    • Cecilie -  August 6, 2015 - 4:30 pm

      I”ve used Irregardless, Maculate and Couth… I’m surprised you’ve not heard them.

      • ann w -  August 7, 2015 - 8:35 pm

        Please don’t tell me you have some of your teachers of English use irregardless. I am from Texas and none of the people with whom I have ever hung out say that. I also can’t stand when I hear t.v. personalities say “betweeen you and I”.Some people have never learned when object pronouns are to be used. I am a retired ESL teacher.

        • Callie -  August 10, 2015 - 2:38 pm

          I’ve always preferred “between me and you”, personally (though I’m unsure if that’s technically correct, or if it should be “[between] you and me”). “Between you and I” just sounds silly.

        • Susan Anderson -  August 11, 2015 - 10:29 am

          “…with whom I have ever hung out…”?? Did you all get hung from a tree? Did you all get hung out to dry?

          I am from Maryland, and my English teachers taught us to say, “with whom I have ever associated.”

          Y’all better follow this directive,”first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

          –Matthew 7:5 (KJV)

    • Deck -  August 6, 2015 - 9:54 pm

      I heard the word all of my life. Living in the Southwest.

      • Rishabh -  August 9, 2015 - 9:14 pm

        Southwest of what

    • Gregory -  October 5, 2015 - 6:32 pm

      I’m rather fond of saying gruntled and feckful.

  65. Annonymoose -  August 5, 2015 - 11:04 am

    As much as I like proper grammar, I fail to see the point in arguing about the word irregardless. Yes, combining the prefix ir with the suffix -less makes it a double negative, but slang has always existed along with the ‘proper form’ of any language. It’s no reason to get your trousers in a twist, it just means that if you’re writing a dictionary or essay you should refrain from using the word.
    Irregardless can still be used in conversation and correspondence to friends. Honestly, I embrace irregardless since it is infinitely less annoying than slang terms like ‘yolo’ or when when one of my peers says ‘I’m going over so-and-so’s house’ as opposed to ‘I’m going over TO so-and-so’s house’.
    Furthermore, if you use irregardless in a conversation, you can gauge how educated the person you’re talking to is simply by whether or not they correct you!

    • schwack -  August 5, 2015 - 3:29 pm

      So, when you say irregardless do you mean with or without regard?

      And you generally do not go ‘over to’ a place. You can go to it or over it, both is tough.

      • DeadLox101 -  August 5, 2015 - 11:16 pm

        yes its a prefix because I’m a grammar teacher as well as a comprehension teacher.It means without concern or problem!!!!

        • Gary Davis -  August 9, 2015 - 2:55 am

          So am I and it’s a complete misunderstanding between irrespective and regardless –

          Regardless is a word –

          IRregardless is not a word, it’s an example of ignorance plus being a double negative!

        • Alex -  August 10, 2015 - 5:13 pm

          You can’t be a very good grammar teacher if you use that many exclamation marks for no real reason.

      • DarkerSkies -  August 6, 2015 - 7:16 pm

        Well, if irregardless was a word, I’d say it means it’s not regardless. Regardless means to do something/anything with permission do do it. Irregardless would mean that you can’t do it, under any circumstance. It would practically mean that you are adding the canceling affect of doing something by adding ‘irr’. I would say it’s a word.

      • Alejandro Sugasti -  August 8, 2015 - 5:36 pm

        Now we’re talking business! I agree 100% with you! Prefix i and ir is essentially of Latin origin. This sounds to me something out o “spanglish” very strong around southwestern states.It sounds redundant to me.

    • J P -  August 5, 2015 - 5:05 pm

      This bothers me greatly. I believe someone heard someone else use the word “irrespective,” which is a completely legitimate word meaning, without respect to. This first person liked the sound of irrespective, and why not, it has quite an erudite sound to it. But then in a moment of confusion this same person added the “ir” prefix to regardless instead of respective and, voila, a new and repugnant word is added to the lexicon – or should I say a new and irrepugnantless word? The speaker’s region and slang have nothing to do with this and the fact that this word has been added to the “official” English language is a sad commentary on our society.

      • Gary Davis -  August 9, 2015 - 3:02 am

        I quite agree JP and my view also, it’s like the other American nonsense “I could care less’ when in fact they really mean “They couldn’t .. ” I put it down to ignorance ..

    • Joyce -  August 5, 2015 - 5:05 pm

      Obviously, you have very little knowledge of grammar. Your sentence, “It’s no reason to get your trousers in a twist, it just means that if you’re writing a dictionary or essay you should refrain from using the word.” is called a comma splice. It should be two sentences, not one separated by a comma.

    • Adger Ellen -  August 5, 2015 - 5:46 pm

      You just don’t understand my friend. You just don’t understand…

    • Julia -  August 6, 2015 - 12:07 am

      “Irregardless”? That’s not even a real word.

      You’re affixing the negative prefix “ir” to “regardless,”

      but as “regardless” is already negative, it’s a logical absurdity.

    • oldjackbob -  August 6, 2015 - 5:54 am

      I’ve always maintained that “irregardless” is the illegitimate spawn of a speaker’s confusion over the words “regardless” and “irrespective”.

      • Somya B -  August 7, 2015 - 9:42 am

        my SAT teacher said never to use the word irregardless….

    • Pseudo Sense -  August 7, 2015 - 9:16 am

      “Furthermore, if you use irregardless in a conversation, you can gauge how educated the person you’re talking to is simply by whether or not they correct you!” ( Annonymoose – August 5, 2015 – 11:04 am)

      I’m sorry but that is rubbish. You cannot judge a person’s education based on this. Also, if they don’t correct you, does that mean that they know its a valid term and so say nothing or does it mean that they don’t know?

      • Danelius -  August 11, 2015 - 3:16 pm

        Also, correcting people in their speech like that is condescending and is a great way to lose friends. I only correct others when they erroneously ‘correct’ me with an incorrect correction haw haw

      • Gianna -  August 12, 2015 - 6:02 pm

        It means they have manners.

  66. Barbara -  August 5, 2015 - 8:32 am

    Reading through the comments I realise that I am not alone. This is a great relief!

    • DeadLox101 -  August 5, 2015 - 11:17 pm


  67. Scott -  August 5, 2015 - 7:07 am

    can some of the people here explain the use of {of or off} also {to or too} i just cant seem to get how to use them when writing a letter or email???

    • Shadow -  August 5, 2015 - 11:48 am

      “Off” would be used in saying “switch off the stove.” Or “get off the counter.” It has nothing to do with “of.” You would say “off” as “auf” and of as “uhv.” In a sentence you can use them as “Go to the City of London and take the bell off of Elizabeth tower.” “To” and “too” are also completely different just as “two” and “to” are. “To” would be used in a sentence explaining where to go as in “go to South Downing Street.” Too would mean also, as in “I like ice cream too!” In a sentence, “I’m going to the carnival too.” Hope this helped. :).

      • Anario -  August 7, 2015 - 7:23 am

        “Go to the City of London and take the bell off of Elizabeth tower.” sounds grammatically incorrect. I’ve always pondered the reason some people use “off of…” instead of “off the…” Considering your use of a compound sentence and propers nouns, the articulated version should be: “Go to the City of London, and take the bell off the Elizabeth Tower.” or “Go to the City of London; take the bell off the Elizabeth Tower.”

        • Senator_Kang -  August 8, 2015 - 1:55 am

          “Sounds grammatically incorrect,” is a horrible guide to engaging in the use of proper grammar.

          “Get off of the sidewalk,” is more proper than, “Get off the sidewalk.”

          “Off of” is the prepositional phrase that is opposite of “Onto.” “The cat jumped onto the mat. The cat jumped off of the mat.” If you leave out the “of” in, “the cat jumped off of the mat,” you have, ” the cat jumped off the mat.” If we diagram that last version of the sentence, the “of” is still there, it is simply said to be “understood.”

          • Atto -  August 11, 2015 - 8:12 am

            Why not “off from” for the opposite of “onto?” Less common, but certainly more correct.

    • Joyce -  August 5, 2015 - 5:03 pm

      The difference between to and too is that ‘to’ is a preposition (to the store; to the jobsite; to the mall; and so on), so you would use it in this example: We need to go to the store. The word ‘too’ is an adverb, so you would use it in this example: I want to go to the store, too. It means you ‘also’ want to go. So use when you mean ‘also’.

    • Jessica -  August 7, 2015 - 7:49 am

      I’m going TO the store.
      There are TOO many flavors of soda to choose from.

      I am turning OFF the light switch.
      I am the daughter OF an electrician.

  68. writer on Nantucket -  August 5, 2015 - 6:35 am

    This discussion is ludicrous. Regardless of how you feel, Irregardless is a “word” that makes no sense. Even spellcheck has no synonyms. It is used only by those who don’t know any better.

    • Eric Glare -  August 5, 2015 - 8:31 pm

      I don’t feel it is ludicrous because I and everyone around me have used it for 50 years without confusion. I think your approach is just naive to my dialect and that is ludicrous for ignoring the diversity of English. And no doubt you have language I think is ‘wrong’. I use learnt and earnt and I write completely around days of the week as in “will arrive on Monday” rather than the lazy “will arrive Monday”.

    • Abigail -  August 5, 2015 - 11:24 pm

      I agree 100%. But it’s a day and time when correct spelling and good grammar are becoming (have become) sloppy. I think it may be due to poor educators in our schools. Unfortunately there are a lot of “those who don’t know any better.”

      • Julie -  August 6, 2015 - 10:38 am

        Poor educators or poor parenting?

    • Senator_Kang -  August 8, 2015 - 1:57 am

      “Spellcheck” is you reference? Goodness. Civilization does ebb and flow, does she not?

    • Starrfinder -  August 9, 2015 - 1:31 am

      If someone makes up a word. And someone else knows what it means, THEN IT’S A WORD.

  69. writer on Nantucket -  August 5, 2015 - 6:27 am

    This discussion is ludicrous. Irregardless is a “word” that makes no sense. It is used by people who don’t know any better. spellcheck doesn’t even know what to do with it.

  70. Anton -  August 5, 2015 - 2:30 am

    I would tend to interpret the word “Irregardless” as not without regard. I could be totally wrong but will leave it up to all you grammar bufs. ;-)

  71. Abdiel Silva -  August 4, 2015 - 10:40 pm

    Honestly, I have never noticed irregardless has a double negation on it = (

  72. Wayno -  August 4, 2015 - 6:25 pm

    Irregardless has a double negative meaning, which cancels the negative and therefore means:”to have regard”. I liken it to people that say ” I didn’t do nothing”, well simple, “you did do something”. Cut the rubbish and talk English, disregard and eliminate this stupid word, just don’t follow my example when it comes to English tho…

  73. Donna -  August 4, 2015 - 1:11 pm

    Irregardless is not a grammatically correct word and should not be accepted as such. Improper English and slang have always existed, but should not be included in a dictionary. Another term I have heard used regularly is “these ones”. Unfortunately, no one seems to care that this is also incorrect English. Whenever I hear such utterances I think of a quote from Mark Twain:
    “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”

    • Claire -  August 4, 2015 - 2:55 pm

      Using the word “irregardless” does not make you a fool. It is part of several dialects and proof of the evolution of language. The point of language is to communicate your thoughts to others. If a person lives in a region where “irregardless” is used frequently, then they are perfectly right in using the word. It allows them to fit in socially with their peers and their meaning will be understood. American English evolves and changes quickly. It is appropriate for dictionaries to update accordingly.

      • Merc -  August 4, 2015 - 4:06 pm

        Claire, I agree with you in part but not totally. Using double negatives will likely sound positive just as in math problems. I know “Queens English” will like to knock out our American English sometimes. I have an English Colleague that uses the word “learnt” all the time but we use “Learned” in the U.S.

      • Adam -  August 5, 2015 - 1:32 am

        Sick counter-argument blud. Donna got rekt (these terms are used frequently in my region and should also be added to the dictionary).

      • Chris -  August 5, 2015 - 8:44 am

        I disagree Claire.
        For one (Is that correct? ;-), I don’t believe there are specific “regions” that might use the word I don’t see how a word like ‘irregardless’ can be viewed as correct when logic dictates that it is not.

        Americans (and many others) certainly are very adept at creating slang words and so on, but this word is not slang. It is simply a misuse of language ‘tools’.

        Just like grammarians (and parents) get peeved when one of their kids utters “I ain’t got nothin’!”.

        It is simply incorrect and should be avoided.

      • Dave -  August 5, 2015 - 9:45 am

        I agree with Claire. Being from Chicago, I grew up using the term “these ones”. Now being a transplant in Atlanta, I have realized how odd it sounds after it was pointed out by friends not from up north. Regional differences keep things interesting and anyone supposing that someone is ignorant because they do not speak like they do is, well, ignorant. :)

      • Gregory -  October 5, 2015 - 7:12 pm

        There are dictionaries and there are reliable linguistic references. Dictionaries like Miriam-Webster simply list ‘words’ that have come into common usage, that the reader may understand what speakers mean when they use them. This is no real legitimizing of the word. Someone mentioned that they used the word in his/her region for over 50 years. This is colloquialism. It’s damn near patois.

    • shariati shariati -  August 5, 2015 - 12:57 am

      sounds like Bush English…no pun intended or implied…

    • Paris Dawn -  August 5, 2015 - 6:25 am

      I totally agree with you, Donna. I have an English background and had never heard of this word until several years ago, since living in Canada. My former hairdresser’s husband was from the U.S. and uses it constantly. I would “cringe” every time they uttered that word and wanted to tell them that it was grammatically incorrect. Personally, I don’t think that it deserves a space in the English dictionary.

      I agree with your quote too Donna, it’s apt and one of my favourites. :)

    • dmm -  August 5, 2015 - 6:58 am

      Mark Twain’s quote adds color to what was probably the original source for his thoughts – Proverbs 17:18 in the Bible says : “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” It is a very good quote indeed.

    • Barbara -  August 5, 2015 - 8:24 am

      I’m with you Donna! The worst part is that I have a much higher tolerance for language errors from a person for whom English is a second or subsequent language than someone who has spoken English his or her entire life. I also find that the former is grateful upon learning the correct term and quite often speak better English than the latter.

    • Ben -  August 5, 2015 - 8:49 am

      The purpose of a dictionary is to catalog words as they are used, not to dictate the rules of said usage. For better or for worse the word irregardless exists, so it belongs in the dictionary.

  74. Ray -  August 4, 2015 - 12:37 pm

    How about the use of “currently”? “You currently have no new messages.” Better said, “You have no new messages.”

    AND, I still do not understand when (if ever) to use “literally”.

    • Chris -  August 5, 2015 - 8:50 am

      Currently, I literally agree with that!!! ;-)

      I also have a problem with “more, or most unique”.

      “Unique” means one of a kind, therefore there can’t be comparatives associated with it.

      This one might be more nit-picky than others…

    • Dave -  August 5, 2015 - 9:43 am

      Ray, is your question meant to be taken literally? :)

      • young money -  August 6, 2015 - 10:04 am

        does anyone know the definition to intercalary chapter

    • Sam -  August 6, 2015 - 1:30 am

      I’d say one should probably only use the word “literally” when they are saying something that could be interpreted as a figure of speech or a piece of hyperbole.

      eg – “There were literally millions of people at the protest”, or, indeed, “I literally wet myself laughing”.

      The problem now is that people will simply use it for emphasis, so if someone does say that they “literally” wet themselves laughing, you still can’t be sure whether they actually did, or whether they simply found something incredibly funny. Ah well, another useful word neutered beyond purpose. It happens.

      • bob poindexter -  August 12, 2015 - 2:06 am

        Sam, not sure if you’re joking or not. If you’re not joking, be advised you are totally incorrect. “Literal” is the exact meaning or strict interpretation of the words. Figures of speech or hyperbole are precisely the times you should NOT use the word. If you “literally wet yourself laughing”, you do indeed have a bladder issue.

        The word should not be used for emphasis, irregardless of the fact that some people do wrongly use it that way.

        (See what I did there? :) )

    • Kamal -  August 7, 2015 - 2:34 pm

      ‘Literally’ can be used to distinguish from ‘metaphorically’.

  75. Joseph In Missoula -  August 4, 2015 - 12:33 pm

    How about avoiding the wrath and using the term “irrespective” instead?

    • Joyce -  August 5, 2015 - 5:14 pm

      The word ‘irrespective’ is obsolete and no longer considered good grammar. See Merriam Webster.

  76. Dubbs -  August 4, 2015 - 12:00 pm

    To be honest, I don’t like the word irregardless but wouldn’t jump on someone for using it – as I hate it when people do that to me, especially when they’re wrong. The other day, I used the word “reduplicate” only to be asked, quite smugly: “you do know that that means to duplicate more than once, don’t you?”

    “No. No it does not mean that. At all.” I replied

    • dmm -  August 5, 2015 - 7:03 am

      Witty. Who else gets this?

      • Joyce -  August 5, 2015 - 5:11 pm

        I do! It absolutely does mean to duplicate again. Duplicate stands on its own. Duh!

      • Chris -  August 6, 2015 - 9:50 am

        I didn’t… Is it witty because he used the word “No” twice? – Just asking.

        Is it’s usage similar to “redouble”?

      • Joanne -  August 12, 2015 - 6:54 am

        I am wondering the same things as Chris. I hope someone answers.

  77. Rebekah -  August 4, 2015 - 12:02 am

    irregardless of the comments above I think it should be a word used in the English language :)

    • Ray -  August 4, 2015 - 12:40 pm

      Isn’t Rebecca spelled “Rebecca” (see Bible”)

      • Rai -  August 4, 2015 - 4:05 pm

      • Liam Crawford -  August 5, 2015 - 2:22 am

        Leave Rebekaka alone, I think she is fit.

      • HEATHER -  August 5, 2015 - 6:12 am

        Why do YOU have a quote after Bible? Are you trying to make a point?

      • Barbara -  August 5, 2015 - 8:27 am

        No Ray, in Hebrew, even the transliterated version to English, is Rivkah.

      • Bob -  August 5, 2015 - 9:14 am

        Ray, aren’t you arrogant! Who are you the name police? I hope you feel good about your shallowness. Your watching to much reality TV to think that your comments are acceptable.

  78. Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry -  August 3, 2015 - 7:47 pm

    I’ve said this before but it doesn’t seem to get through–the word “irregardless” means not-regardless, oft used as a comeback to taunt or accusation of being less-than-sincere or sarcastic, or extra emphasis as-if… a judge for example might make a decision “notwithstanding” (so which way does that go?)… People who don’t actually use words but repeat what they hear, should listen to themselves till they get said what they would….

  79. Ralph -  August 3, 2015 - 4:11 pm

    Well! I have read most of these comments. Very varied responses. I too cringe at some grammar errors,but, I cringe secretly,unless it’s my grandchildren and good friends. I am sure I am guilty of some inadequacies in the language. And, I don’t mind being told……in a civil manner. I find it stimulating. We have a Chinese student living with us. Her grammar is quite unusual, but we understand. But we do correct her……..oops! I started a sentence with “but”.

    • Merc -  August 4, 2015 - 3:38 pm

      You are right Ralph, I sometimes catch myself starting a sentence with “So” and I really hate that especially when professionals do that on the radio or TV. I feel “So”" could start a written sentence as long as a comma follows it. Could the same apply to “But?” I’m also upset that the language expects my “?” to be placed within my closed quotation mark here! I also hate the word “anyways” in a sentence.

  80. BillF -  August 3, 2015 - 1:47 pm

    And how about the ambiguous use of the word “anymore”. Attempts to convey its true meaning to various over-users apparently fall on deaf ears, as they will use it whether or not the meaning is intended to express action that has ended or is still ongoing.
    For the record, that totally guts all meaning as the word can only be correctly used to describe something that is “not” (happening) “anymore”. Saying “anymore they still do (that)…” is the field mark of an uneducated ignorant person.
    Upon having it explained and they continue anyway, dare I add stupid and stubborn to those adjectives. And earning that much criticism takes work.
    Good luck to those that after eleven years of English in public and county schools somehow never paid attention and saying “I’m no English major” is a feeble excuse in the light of such intense compulsory education. I completed my undergrad arts & sci. major in less than a year. ..Do the math.

    • Steve -  August 3, 2015 - 4:22 pm

      Regardless of your opinion, and the fact that “irregardless” is in the dictionary (albeit not the MS spellcheck dictionary,) it must be a word, a nonstandard adverb, or at least a noun. Otherwise, we would be talking about nothing, and all these smart people would have been wasting their time over the last 5 days.

      • BBRYCEMARCUSBANDA -  August 4, 2015 - 11:12 am

        it is a word when it has a meaning

    • Adamantium -  August 3, 2015 - 6:16 pm

      Personally I get a kick out of some of the ways folks respond to a word. No wonder the term “Grammar nazi” became popular. Some of you guys take language way to seriously, going so far as to judge it’s users intelligence based of the words they use. See, I live in the south, where otherwise perfectly intelligent people enjoy the use of the term “ain’t,” I tend to enjoy making up words for style and affect, it’s rather common these days.

      If every one spoke like victorian aristocracy I think I’d want to shoot myself, irregardless to how cultured and intelligent we would seem. (see what I did there?)

      • Norman -  August 4, 2015 - 2:23 pm

        Yes, you mis-used “effect” :-)

        G. Nazi

        • Bradford P. -  August 4, 2015 - 4:25 pm

          Cheers to ‘Norman’! Clearly one of the most brilliant retorts no one saw coming. I enjoy your poignant humor (and very clever disguise), G. Nazi!

      • PL -  August 4, 2015 - 10:43 pm

        It’s or its? Please clarify.

      • a -  August 5, 2015 - 2:10 am

        I, too, live in the South, but I’m not from there. Proper English grammar isn’t about being a “grammar Nazi”, to me; it’s important for communication with other people. I read a lot of books for fun during my childhood, so it seemed easy for me to remember grammar rules.

        For example, when I was in tenth, grade, in a rural Southern school, a couple of girls came up to me at lunchtime and one of them said, “We’ve seen you here, alone, all the time. Do you mind if I sit down next to you?” “No,” I responded. Well, the girl suddenly jumped up quickly and she and her friend walked away, muttering angrily amongst themselves. It took me a few seconds to realize that she’d misinterpreted my,”No”, as, “No, I don’t want you to sit here, when I really was answering her question with, “No, I don’t mind.” I thought she’d understood that, when you say, “Do you mind…?” that “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means “No.”

        I think they’d intended to try to become friends with me, but because they didn’t understand proper grammar, they thought I was rejecting them and walked away angrily.

        • Jethro -  August 9, 2015 - 12:00 pm

          That is such a sad story!

          For what it’s worth, I’m not sure I’d agree with you that the girls were in the wrong. Your version and their version were both clearly in use (and therefore ultimately ‘correct’), but were in use by different groups of people.

          Instead, I’d say that social inequality creates a gulf that is hard to cross. Hard for them to avoid jumping to the wrong conclusion that you were being stand-offish, and hard for you to correct that impression and explain that you had meant to welcome them…

          I might be making assumptions here, linking literacy with social inequality – it could be just cultural difference that separated you…

      • Barbara -  August 5, 2015 - 8:30 am

        I have noticed that some television programmes use subtitles for shows, in English, originating in different parts of the U.S.A. when airing in Canada. I would be so embarrassed if I was the person speaking in any of those shows. :(

        • Anthony -  August 5, 2015 - 12:07 pm

          One shouldn’t make insulting generalizations about any group. I certainly try not to do that when watching Canadian shows such as “Property Brothers” when Drew tells the homeowners to “Come back to the house to see Jonathan and I”. They do this quite frequently, but I’m not about to judge an entire nation by their errors and those of many other Canadians.

    • Lucas -  August 3, 2015 - 10:41 pm

      I am a potato

    • Naijaman -  August 4, 2015 - 6:40 am

      “I’m no English major”? Really? I beg you to try, “I’m not an English major.” Don’t throw stones…..!

    • Tom -  August 4, 2015 - 7:13 am

      I have never heard anyone say ““anymore they still do (that)…” or use “anymore” in such a way at all. Are these native English speakers? And isn’t it “any more” (two words)?

    • dmb36x -  August 4, 2015 - 8:45 am

      I was originally bothered by your arrogance but not anymore. :)

  81. Natasha -  August 3, 2015 - 1:04 pm

    Irregardless may not be a word but English is littered with odd words and phrases that make us smile.

    Personally I hate it when people who use the word ’till’ in a sentence such as ‘I will not be getting to work till seven’. The word is until or you can use ’til but not till. It is wrong grammatically and looks ridiculous.

    • Liam -  August 4, 2015 - 2:45 am


      “Till and until are both old in the language and are interchangeable as both prepositions and conjunctions: It rained till(or until) nearly midnight. The savannah remained brown and lifeless until (or till) the rains began. Till is not a shortened form of until and is not spelled ’till. ‘Til is usually considered a spelling error, though widely used in advertising: Open ’til ten.”

      • Chris -  August 6, 2015 - 9:54 am

        I saw this in another dictionary as well and both words are acceptable.

        I don’t see why ’til is incorrect by your estimation though. Contractions are common in out language and this is a perfect example.

  82. Val -  August 3, 2015 - 9:03 am

    When someone says, “I could care less”, I always ask, “How much less could you care?”

    • Really? -  August 4, 2015 - 2:20 am

      Oh my… That’s so funny.

  83. Connor Ian Tunney -  August 3, 2015 - 8:37 am

    Ofcourse it’s a word, if people say it then why not?

  84. Robert Gilmore -  August 3, 2015 - 6:24 am

    I’ve always been a bit of a perfectionist with the language. While it is true that many people use words like “irregardless”, I am with those who do not bother to correct others unless the opportunity presents itself in an unoffensive way. The use of this word should certainly not be encouraged.
    My personal pet peeve is the term “I could care less” when plainly the speaker is trying to say “I couldn’t care less”. I am often mortified to hear people who generally have a good command of the language use this phrase.

    • Joan Kelly -  August 3, 2015 - 2:03 pm

      I agree with you. I don’t correct either, but don’t believe it makes sense to be a word. Regardless is a word – would irregardless be the opposite? if so, that is not how people use it.

  85. mistura -  August 3, 2015 - 4:49 am

    irregardless isnt that like a tautology or something
    i mean even if it was real it will be like not using the word at all or it could be euphemism….i dont know

  86. Charlie -  August 3, 2015 - 3:51 am

    I don’t dislike the word itself, but I would rather use its logical meaning, “NOT without regard to…”, unirregardless whether most people understand it this way. Unirregardless – now that is a lovely word!

    • Natasha -  August 3, 2015 - 12:57 pm

      Unirregardless – I love this word, I think that this should be added to the dictionary instead!

      • wizzy -  August 5, 2015 - 3:23 am

        K. I’ll go with ir-irregardless! Has a better ‘ring.’

  87. JunB -  August 2, 2015 - 10:50 pm

    I have always thought that words and sentences are constructed for us to be able to communicate. Communication is putting the message across. I am from a country where we were taught English so that we will be able to understand what the English-speaking world says. I think the purists, the linguists and the poets would cringe at the use of the word “irregardless.” Irregardless however, for us whose basic reason for learning the English language is to understand and to also convey our messages to those who doesn’t speak ours, I really wouldn’t mind seeing (or hearing) grammatical errors, pronunciation errors, punctuation errors and the like. After all, the real objective is to be able to communicate.

    • Bob -  August 3, 2015 - 1:33 pm

      Re: “I think the purists,… and the poets would cringe at the use of the word ‘irregardless’.” ¶ Personally, I hope that we can cut the poets some linguistic slack. After all they are the only ones who have a license to practice poetry! ¶ Seriously, I agree with the writer. When this misuse occurs within my rapidly diminishing hearing range I try to remember the three choices I offer myself: be happy; be right; or, be an elitist who basks in self-satisfaction that apparently I have attained more education than the speaker. I try to choose the first, sometimes end up selecting the second, and disdain it in myself (and others) when the third is chosen. ¶ I do believe that we have a tendency to view as “lesser than” those who use such a term. It is disputed as to whether Will Rogers or Mark Twain opined to the effect that we are all ignorant but about different subjects. Regardless (!) it is true.

      • Wanda Marcus -  August 4, 2015 - 6:33 am

        I agree. Choose to be happy. Why quibble and get stressed and act as language police?

      • Joanne -  August 4, 2015 - 7:03 am

        Love your comments, Bob.

    • Joanne -  August 4, 2015 - 7:09 am

      JunB, I’m surprised because I would have thought English learners would be confused by bad grammar, etc. If we were more fastidious with our language, wouldn’t you have fewer “exceptions to rules” to memorize?

  88. Sheryll -  August 2, 2015 - 9:16 pm

    Anyway, now that “regardless” has once again been brought back to its proper linguistic place, can we now work on correcting the pervasive use of “anyways”?

    • gia -  August 5, 2015 - 11:02 am

      Good one Sheryll! But anyways, irregardless of the correct or incorrect use of your word ‘anyways,’ another real winner is ending a sentence or question with the word AT!

      • gia -  August 5, 2015 - 11:12 am

        …’AT’ Seems like that is the blunder I hear most often. (Pronounced ‘OFFTIN, of course☺️.) However, I could care less about that. Because there’s yet another grammatical error that I really have a problem with. And this one really tops the chart… the use of the ‘word’ ALLS!?!?!

        • gia -  August 5, 2015 - 11:22 am

          Or maybe they would spell it ALL’S, or maybe even ALLZ…? So let me list a few examples: ALLS you have to do is…ALL’S she said is…ALLZ I did was…To be honest, I currently hear this one most of all – even from executives, I’m talkin CEO’s! Well that’s the end of my rant, and as you can see, in total I fit in some excellent classic grammatical crimes…I’m no expert, but I count at LEAST 13 – what you say?

  89. Marty Scheinberg -  August 2, 2015 - 5:28 pm

    Anybody for “disirregardless?”

    • Grammer Gustapo -  August 3, 2015 - 8:43 am

      How about antiundisirregardless? Now, I’m dizzy!

      • Cynthia Ramsey -  August 4, 2015 - 11:40 am

        Dear Grammer Gustapo,

        Thank you for two of the most hearty laugh-out-loud reading experiences I’ve had in many days!* The first was occasioned by your name, and the second by your comment. Very funny!! (:(:(:

        *[By the way, I would have said "many a day," but I doubt there are many speakers of genuine olde English here...'tho I could be mistaken about that, too (i.e., in addition to all the other things which the passage of time, for one thing, has shown me I was mistaken about). (: ]

  90. BruceS -  August 2, 2015 - 9:45 am

    Those of you who insist on continuing to use this abomination may feel justified because it’s OLD and in the dictionary. However, those of us who know better will continue to snicker and roll our eyes at you behind your backs.

  91. Steve -  August 2, 2015 - 9:04 am

    When I know someone is educated and proceeds to use a wrong word like irregardless in a sentence when speaking to me, or every other word is ‘like’, it puts a brake on my listening, and I stop to judge the speaker’s level of education, their position in our culture, etc. I’m easily distracted by .bad grammar, and lose out on what the speaker’s original intent was.

    • al -  August 3, 2015 - 6:58 pm

      Every other word is ‘like’ and each fifth word is ‘awesome’. Makes me bite my finger tips. However; my pet is pronouncing the T in often. Anyone else?

      • Cynthia Ramsey -  August 4, 2015 - 11:56 am

        al, you’ve stumped me! I didn’t know (have never heard that) the “t” in often was not to be pronounced. Why not? It drives me crazy to hear people say, “offen.” I thought they were just being insufferably lazy! I’ve never, ever, heard, or read, that the “t” is supposed to be a silent one in “often.”. When and how did that happen?? Why am I always the last to be told of these earth-shaking developments?! Why?! Why?! Why?!

  92. AbuAnas -  August 2, 2015 - 8:42 am

    As long as there is an understanding why not ?
    I welcome this word to the family of “regard”

  93. lucy -  August 2, 2015 - 7:39 am

    I don’t know

  94. Mo -  August 2, 2015 - 2:49 am

    I too, cringe internally when I hear the word ‘irregardless’ used. However, I do understand what they speaker means. I don’t correct general speakers, but I do let my writing students know that they should avoid using the word in formal written language, unless they are quoting someone, or something like that. A real problem that I have with the word though is that some people have no clue that it’s not a standard word.

    Has anyone ever seen old episodes of a show called In Living Color with the Wayans brothers? Damon Wayans did a skit about a guy who often misused words…. Hilarious!

    But I think we all do it with one word or another at some point in our lives.

  95. David -  August 2, 2015 - 1:36 am

    A language is dynamic in nature. If a word is incorrectly used by masses – surely it should be added to the dictionary as an accepted word in time.

    The dynamism of a language is determined by the speaker and not the language itself.

  96. Rich -  August 1, 2015 - 12:44 pm

    I agree with many others just because a word has been in use for a century and appears in some dictionaries does not make it a legitimate word. I disagree with dictionary.com and point out that ain’t is also in most dictionaries. It is a word in the sense that people will use it, but being printed in a dictionary does not make it a legitimate word.

  97. Lorraine -  July 31, 2015 - 6:36 pm

    As an Australian I am the first to admit we have some strange speech habits in this country. Many years ago while I was at work my (then) new Asian husband went to the coffee shop for me. He returned extremely angry telling me he was sorry but it ha sugar in it. It seems the assistant had said “No sugar?” to which hubby replied “yes please” He exploded to me when he returned “why did the stupid b..tard ask me if he intended to put sugar in it anyhow?”

  98. tom -  July 31, 2015 - 12:37 pm

    Nonetheless, It will be used misundisirregardlessly.

    • Cynthia Ramsey -  August 4, 2015 - 12:16 pm

      Okay, tom, I’m out, you win! I thought Grammer Gustapo had raked in the pot, so to speak, on the most hilarious extrapolation of the mangling of “regardless”. I was wrong and I’m now helpless with laughter; therefore, there will be no more comments from me, here, today. If I knew how to get emoticons or stickers for this site, I would leave an appropriate one at this point. (: best i can do, sorry. (:

  99. Jahdess -  July 31, 2015 - 11:10 am

    No…it is a double negative…regardless says it all.

    • Reader -  July 31, 2015 - 11:35 am

      I have never been a fan of “irregardless,” and, while I do cringe a bit when I hear it, I would never correct someone and of course know exactly what the speaker means. The word is in the dictionary, so I think the question of whether or not it is a word is moot. Is it “correct”? Grammatically, by some accounts, no, but language is constantly changing and evolving, so who can say whether or not it’s correct to use “irregardless,” especially if the dictionary definition is “regardless”? I, personally, will never use it, though, and will probably always be inwardly annoyed. Snobbish? Fine, but one might also cringe at someone drinking wine from a Mason jar.

      • Cape petrilla -  August 2, 2015 - 12:12 pm

        Irregardless, ugh! I agree with your blatancy. Cp

    • Rich -  August 1, 2015 - 12:45 pm

      I completely and 100% agree with this statement that it is a double negative and he’s clearly not a legitimate word .

    • Rich -  August 1, 2015 - 12:46 pm

      I agree with this statement that it is not a word and is 100% accurate that it is a double negative.

    • Denise -  August 1, 2015 - 1:35 pm

      “Although editors purge irregardless from most published writing, the term is alive and well in spoken English and is recorded in most dictionaries. Those who use it may do so to add emphasis.”

      It is a similar construct to, “I ain’t got no money.” When used colloquially, we all know the extra negative is added for emphasis, rather than clarity. If using irregardless in formal writing, it is best used when quoting someone directly. In such case, be sure to enclose the passage in quotation marks.

    • Connie -  August 1, 2015 - 5:24 pm

      Irregardless is not a word. It is rubbish.

    • David French -  August 2, 2015 - 6:29 am

      I’d say the word is at the same level as can be regarded for the expression “I could care less” (where the opposite meaning is really intended).
      We understand what people are saying, but we hold them at a lower regard in society, since their command of English is obviously poor.
      Poor English like this could cost the person a job, or a raise, or even the chance of a second date (well, it could contribute to this, since one is giving a poor impression).
      But everyone has the right to give a poor impression, of course.

    • Ldr Trainer -  August 2, 2015 - 5:48 pm

      Although “irregardless” is used in common language today, I am not an advocate for the word. I agree with @Jahdess, who correctly noted that it is a double negative. I recognize that this word has been added to the dictionary, but I prefer the formal/original word that has been used for the same meaning: Regardless.

  100. Joanne -  July 31, 2015 - 8:35 am

    It’s like “he don’t got none”.

    • Dee -  August 1, 2015 - 8:55 am

      You mean “He ain’t got none”. Its still a bad example.

      • mitchell -  August 3, 2015 - 4:26 pm


    • Coco -  August 1, 2015 - 11:48 pm

      Two thumbs up

    • Not-A-RINO -  August 2, 2015 - 9:28 am

      Or “it ain’t never going to happen!” :)

      • Starrfinder -  August 9, 2015 - 3:42 am

        Not-A-RINO What I think you meant to say was……Id ain’t never gona’ hapin :)

    • BillF -  August 3, 2015 - 2:03 pm

      Yes that along with “I seen it” for “I saw it” and “hisself” for “himself”… two on a long list of automatic turn-offs for me. One day you are going to be in a job interview and your future could depend on how clearly you speak. That should matter but to many it seems not to.

      • Geo -  August 11, 2015 - 10:45 pm

        There is an English “creole” of black vernacular English that contains some of these pronounciations. There is a black vernacular dictionary, also. The history of BVE is quite interesting and has origins in what is sometimes called “plantation creole.”.
        When my frontal cortex is activated, I do not use “irregardless.”

  101. Juli -  July 31, 2015 - 6:42 am

    I was once told a story about an attorney arguing a case before the Supreme Court, when he used the word irregardless. The story goes that one of the justices actually stopped and corrected the attorney,. pointing out that it was not a word. True?

    • Tucker -  August 3, 2015 - 3:01 pm

      The U.S. Supreme Court’s Chief Justice William Rehnquist “upbraided a lawyer who used irregardless, saying: “I feel bound to inform you there is no word irregardless in the English language. The word is regardless. Linguistic Fastidiousness is no less important in oral than written argument.” (search on the quote to a link to where I got this reference.

      • Cynthia Ramsey -  August 4, 2015 - 11:58 am


      • PL -  August 4, 2015 - 10:58 pm

        This is a good point. If one used, in a legal case, the word “irregardless” and its literal meaning is the opposite of “regardless”, this could have an unintended affect on the outcome of the proceedings.
        I would concur with his Honour.
        There are times when grammar matters and times when it does not. In legal proceedings, it does.

        • GH -  August 6, 2015 - 3:37 am

          If it matters sometimes, why not simply use it correctly at all times and save the confusion.

      • Kamal -  August 7, 2015 - 2:35 pm

        Who is correct, the Judge or the Oxford English Dictionary?

  102. Laura -  July 31, 2015 - 5:46 am

    I am not a native English speaker, and because of what I’ve seen here I’d like to apologize in advance for any grammar errors or anything.
    But my god, what are you people crude to each other! Sure it’s a good thing to have an opinion, but you guys are just denying the other person’s right of speaking, just because they have a different opinion on the word (or non-word) ‘irregardless’. It is just a word used by a lot of people because it sounds fun or expresses what they intend to say. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    Sure, you shouldn’t be using it in your thesis, but why am I not allowed to use it during a random talk with friends? As if any of you have never come up with a word because it describes exactly what you intent to say at that very moment.

    • JB -  August 1, 2015 - 1:12 am

      I must admit that your opinion is much more Christian than most of ours.. I’ve replied to a couple of post, expressing my feelings of it being used out of ignorance. Maybe it would have better if I hadn’t participated at all. Perhaps those of us who are adamantly against its use, just feel so bad about ourselves, that we need to put others down in order to feel better about ourselves. Another point to ponder, but not in this discussion. Or, maybe some of us are truly concerned about the slippery-slope of our language and education and really fear “what’s next” and what it says about our country and the future of our children and grandchildren.

    • Alonso -  August 1, 2015 - 11:15 pm

      I think you have a great point! What a nice way of speaking up, and for me you sound just like a native speaker.

    • Khristiansen -  August 2, 2015 - 7:04 am

      @Laura – when you come up (aka invent) a word – you know it’s an “invention” and you are using it just to emphasis what you want to say that one time. However people using irregardless – they think this IS a word and they are using it wrong. That’s why! These peoples are twisting the language and they don’t even know that.
      * also, sorry for my EN. It’s my fault but also keyboards fault.

    • person -  August 2, 2015 - 2:15 pm

      give this person an award!

    • reader -  August 2, 2015 - 2:32 pm

      exactly laura! why are y’all being so mean? I’m a grammar nazi and I’ve made up words and actually used irregardless in a paper. So stop the criticism!!!!

  103. john -  July 31, 2015 - 4:28 am

    If people use the word, I will usually understand those people precisely, irregardless of the opinions of a bunch of linguistic precriptivists here. If those prescriptivists pretend to not understand the meaning, the fault lies with the precriptivists limited understanding; Not with the speakers desired word choices and emphasis. Critics are free to bemoan the poor logic of the word. Critics are free to ask others to use better words. But critics should not feel free to deny other humans the linguistic freedom to use words as best fits their needs. Their are certainly subcultures (that critics may not have access to) that use words differently, and might prefer the usage of “irregardless” where the meaning is the same as “regardless”, but with more emphasis.

    • Ron -  July 31, 2015 - 11:06 am

      Dear John
      1.The word to use should be irrespective, that will show some polish in your use of the English language. As well the last paragraph starts with the word THEIR and THERE would be the correct word to have been used.

      • Nilesh -  August 1, 2015 - 3:13 pm

        is this your first “Dear John” letter? ;)

      • Stan -  August 2, 2015 - 7:35 pm

        That was outstanding.

      • Frank -  August 9, 2015 - 12:32 pm

        Dear Ron,
        1. There’s a difference between a paragraph and a sentence.

    • alden -  July 31, 2015 - 11:29 am

      Your condemnation of the prescriptivists isn’t all that compelling given that in it you’ve made four egregious grammar mistakes that aren’t excusable by any kind of “subculture”. So basically you’re just stubborn and stupid.

      • Amazed -  November 9, 2015 - 10:45 pm

        Yes Alden!

    • John -  July 31, 2015 - 12:58 pm

      You descriptivists have no sense of humor.

  104. JoAnn Conley -  July 31, 2015 - 12:32 am

    I always thought the word partner was a noun; however I often read; ” partners with” or “partnering” or the past tense, “partnered”. What about “partnership”, one does not partnership. Am I wrong?

    • Denise -  August 1, 2015 - 1:45 pm

      Reminds me of the word “gift.” When I was a girl, the verb was “give” and what was given was the “gift. (direct object). Now I see “gift” used as a verb, as in “Christmas is the time for gifting cologne to all your friends.” It seems to be used almost exclusively by retail copy writers looking for a more creative (and shorter) way to say “gift giving.” Please tell your children to not take their linguistic lessons from the newspaper inserts.

    • Susanne Ray -  August 1, 2015 - 8:11 pm

      Many words that were once considered to be only nouns, have now been turned into verb forms as well. Partner is a great example. Ex: My partner, Sally, is intelligent. (Noun) I partnered with Sally on this project. (Verb)
      Partnership is a noun as the affix “-ship” designates it to be so, just as the affix “-ing” designates a word to be a verb. I hope this answers your question. If you are interested in this type of this go to your local college or university and take a 101 Linguistics class. It will blow your mind!

    • angela -  August 2, 2015 - 7:16 pm

      Partner can be a noun or a verb, just like many words, depending on how you’re using it

  105. b.ro -  July 30, 2015 - 11:34 pm

    what about my pet hate word ‘unfortunately’?lets cleanse our language.An ethic cleanse if you please

    • aaron -  July 31, 2015 - 11:07 am

      disirrefortunately, this will never happen, my friend.

    • angela -  August 2, 2015 - 7:18 pm

      what’s wrong with that word? It’s a real word that makes real sense with the prefix being used correctly., so why do you hate this word?

    • Alhana -  August 11, 2015 - 8:18 am

      May I ask what exactly your problem with “unfortunately” is? I have never heard it said that that word is incorrect. Also, since you seek to “clense our language, shall we start with you? “Lets” is improper in the way you are using it. The correct word would be “Let’s” as in “Let us”. I understand that our language is often used incorrectly, however, nobody is perfect, as proven by your post and, probably, my own. I can almost completely assure you that I have overlooked some grammatical error in my own post, and I’m sure somebody like me will point it out if I have.

  106. Joanna Spolsky -  July 30, 2015 - 11:09 pm

    I am foreigner. I have read your discussion on “irregardless” (very interesting by the way) and this “word” became to me now the one of the most dreadfull I could eventually misused… Of course now I won’t do that :-) Apologise langauage purists for any other eventually commited mistakes ;-)

  107. Diana -  July 30, 2015 - 7:07 pm

    Regardless says it all.

    Adding Ir to regardless is just tedious and wasn’t a word when I graduated from college.

    However, I used a word Firstly, in a college English paper and my teacher went nuts.
    He said, he was always having to look up my made-up words.

    You were then, supposed to say, In the first place and there after, you could count down, secondly, thirdly.

    Now, I believe it has become acceptable. I still prefer my English more throw-back and formal.

    AND…how many people are writing anything in length anymore.

    We are in a world of cryptic selfies.

    • Diana -  July 30, 2015 - 7:11 pm

      It’s almost like a double negative.
      The Ir to me still cancels out the regardless.
      The IR is redundant.

    • aaron -  July 31, 2015 - 11:10 am

      what drives me nuts is: first of all, second of all, third of all, etc. but huh. didn’t know I couldn’t use ‘firstly’

    • JB -  August 1, 2015 - 1:36 am

      I still don’t think you can use “firstly.” That’s still not a word. Sorry. I could be wrong, but it’s not in my unabridged dictionary, however I didn’t check the internet definitions which are probably more current. …sounds very awkward to me.

    • JPB -  August 1, 2015 - 4:31 am

      It wasn’t a word when you graduated from college? The description above indicates the word has been in use for a century and is recorded in most dictionaries…did you graduate from college more than 100 years ago?

  108. Harry Kingaby -  July 30, 2015 - 6:04 pm

    I think this is similar to the word ‘inflammable.’
    Common usage has totally changed the meaning of this word;
    ‘Flammable’ means easily set on fire. But check the dictionary and ‘inflammable’ means the same thing. But it wasn’t always so.
    Once upon a time ‘inflammable’ meant that it would not readily light up in flames.

    • JB -  August 1, 2015 - 1:43 am

      You are correct. I did check the dictionary and was quite surprised! I wish others would reply as to their thoughts too.

    • Denise -  August 1, 2015 - 1:55 pm

      I was going to comment also on “inflammable.” But I think it evolved from the word “inflame” meaning to set on fire. Flame is a noun, so to “flame” a house makes no sense. But to inflame a house (or more correctly, to “enflame) a house means to set it on fire.

      To all of you non-English speakers, don’t give up. Most of English follows no logical rules. It is learned as we go along, and as you can see, most of us are still learning.

  109. Martin -  July 30, 2015 - 5:29 pm

    Irregardless is a confusing word, just as inflammable is confusing. By adding a negative prefix, one would expect the meaning of the word to change (but it does not change in these instances). Ir-regard-less should mean regarding and in-flammable should mean non-flammable. Using a negative prefix for emphasis is irrational.

    Since irregardless is in common use, it is a word. Since there is a simpler form of irregardless, it should always be considered slang.

    There are several general rules for inclusion of a word in the US dictionary. The most important is whether it has become widely used by people, without education in a specific field. This is shown well by the American Heritage dictionary.

    The second is that an abbreviation or initialism (acronym) can only become a “proper” word if it is easily pronounceable and represents a concept that has existing word. Thus, radar, sonar, and laser are acronyms that have been accepted into common parlance. Abbreviations such as i.e., e.g., or etc. are commonly used, but are not words (as shown by the the periods). Some words become accepted over time, such as goodbye (God be with ye) – a word that is derived by both an idiosyncratic moral substitution (good for God) and an abbreviation.

    The third is that if it is widely used in speech, but not written material, it is always slang. If it is widely used in speech and later becomes widely used in written material it remains slang, if it does not have a meaningful derivation or there is a shorter or simpler form of the word.

    Existing words used as expletives (a word to provide emphasis) such as “literally” remain slang unless the meaning as an expletive is derived from the same root as the existing word.

    • Kay Cee -  August 2, 2015 - 6:48 pm

      @martin, if we are to follow your statement “Since there is a simpler form of irregardless, it should always be considered slang.”, then we should cease with “utilizing” and use “using”. Utilize, utlizing, utlized is so often used instead of use, using and used, which are all more simple forms. (My pet hate.)

  110. Person Noun -  July 30, 2015 - 12:56 pm

    Irregardless just sounds so hypocritical. The prefix ir- is supposed to convey not, so it technically means ‘not irregardless’ but then it’s a useless word and is technically the same as ‘regard’, the root word. But still, without the double-negatives-cancel-each-other, it’s kind of useless because someone could just say regardless instead of irregardless. I think this was informational, but really, I’d stick with ‘regardless’.

    • EHD -  July 30, 2015 - 4:45 pm

      Now you have added another negative! I think you mean ‘not regardless’ which would be the same as ‘regard’. If you are going to use ‘not’ then you have to leave off ‘ir’.

    • maribel -  July 30, 2015 - 6:13 pm


  111. Gregory -  July 30, 2015 - 12:54 pm

    @Matt Platts – Your comment reminds me of an OLD ‘joke’ ; “He thought his booger was funny but it’s really snot.” =] Thanks for reminder!

    • john -  July 31, 2015 - 3:38 am

      Hi Gregory. You buggered up your booger joke, I think. The joke is “He thought his booger was funny but really it’s snot”. This way “it’s snot” is a double entendre. It’s still funny all these years later. :)

    • Sandra -  July 31, 2015 - 7:47 am

      I always heard this as “… but really it’s snot.” Kind of funny either way

    • aaron -  July 31, 2015 - 11:12 am

      when you go to kiss your honey
      and your nose is kinda runny
      you may think it’s very funny
      well it’s snot!

    • Kay Cee -  August 2, 2015 - 6:52 pm

      I’m nearing 50 and live in Australia and have not heard that one…but laughed all the same.

  112. Jim Huntamer -  July 30, 2015 - 12:12 pm

    English is a living language. That mean correct pronunciation, definition, punctuation, and grammar are all determined by common usage by “educated people”, whatever that means. It is the people who use the language who determine what is correct. The only thing that makes language incorrect is when it fails to communicate clearly what the speaker or writer intended. Definitions and usage change over time. A recent example is when a person is referring to someone who could be either male or female. It has become accepted and very welcomed usage to use the plural pronoun “their”, even though it is referring to a single person, in place of the awkward and distracting repeated use of the phrase “him or her”. Let’s stop treating English as though it were a fixed, dead language.

    • Tracy Hughes -  July 31, 2015 - 1:37 am

      Jim, I agree with you that we can and should treat the English language as the vital, changing, growing entity it is. In dealing with the language as a living being, I suggest we treat it with the respect it deserves, if just for its richness in texture and flavor (it literally contains all the language of the world in a way no other does). I suggest that our respect consist of a basic understanding of the rules of English (such as the simple rule involved with the word, “irregardless” that says we don’t use two negatives to invoke a negative meaning), and that we show the language the basic respect of proofreading our work EVERY time, so that we do, in fact, say what we mean.

      • Joyce -  August 2, 2015 - 9:33 am


    • Brandon Atkinson -  July 31, 2015 - 7:33 am

      You are right, English continues ot evolve. However, language is an extension of thought. We judge the intelligence of others by their expressed thoughts. When I hear someone say ‘irregardless’, I immediately suspect they are unintelligent. So whether its a word or non-word, I wouldn’t recommend its usage if you wish to be respected intellectually.

      • Doug -  August 3, 2015 - 9:07 am

        intelligence – The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills

        I don’t know who your “We” in “We judge the intelligence of…” is intended to include, but I don’t want to be included. In my 74 years, I have known too many people with the ability to acquire knowledge, but who lacked the opportunity to acquire the education that would inform them that “irregardless” is a poor word to choose.

    • Kayo -  August 1, 2015 - 9:15 pm

      I think you meant to say either “them” in place of “him or her” OR “their” in place of “his or her”.

    • Kay Cee -  August 2, 2015 - 6:55 pm

      Dear Jim, what you say is only somewhat correct because if there were not a generally accepted norm, confusion would reign supreme. Imagine the confusion with the use of its and it’s as a simple example.

  113. gary lopez-watts -  July 30, 2015 - 12:05 pm

    today i was writing a comment on a google plus post, and decided to do a little verbal experimentation. i came up with a word that struck me as wholly sensible, and i would like to see it entered into the english lexicon. it means “obvious” and the word is “ofcoursical” not too much effort is necessary to understand it, and i may continue using it regardless.

    • George Dean -  July 30, 2015 - 1:25 pm

      GL-W, Thanks for the laugh!

    • Lori C. -  July 30, 2015 - 2:51 pm

      You can for now add it to the Urban Dictionary! Love it.

    • JB -  July 30, 2015 - 5:20 pm


    • Art -  August 4, 2015 - 7:29 pm

      Now THAT is some awesome strategerie! :)

  114. Deborah Dudley -  July 30, 2015 - 11:41 am

    There is no such word as irregardless. Anyone with an understanding of English language would cringe at the sound of it. The word is regardless. AND I strongly object to the word ‘selfie’ being introduced to the Oxford dictionary. It is moronic … now there’s a handy word! Anyone agree?

    • John -  July 30, 2015 - 1:59 pm

      Another word for the day- fussbudget!

    • Dangermouse -  July 30, 2015 - 4:51 pm

      I agree.

    • Dangermouse -  July 30, 2015 - 4:52 pm

      I agree with Deborah, that it.

    • JB -  July 30, 2015 - 5:51 pm

      I agree. Thanks for saying what I would like to have said, but wouldn’t have had the confidence since I am neither well read or well educated. I do cringe at its use though.

      • JB -  July 30, 2015 - 6:27 pm

        I forgot to mention that “selfie” should only be in a dictionary if listed as “slang for…” I don’t object to it as strongly as you, but certainly don’t consider it proper English. I regard it as I previously mentioned “slang,” I do, however, love “moronic”, and use it when I feel appropriate. It is appropriate for “irregardless” as is “idiotic.”

    • Diana -  July 30, 2015 - 7:13 pm

      Deborah, you are absolutely correctomundo/correctamundo!

    • john -  July 31, 2015 - 3:55 am

      No one has the ability to fixate language to their own specifications. Irregardless as an utterance communicates meaning successfully. It’s meaning has more emphasis than “regardless”. And it has a more blue collar tone. Therefore it is a word. The word regardless would be a very weak substitute for the word irregardless in many spoken contexts. As an interjection, for instance.

    • Mikkel -  July 31, 2015 - 7:54 am

      By any reasonable definition of ‘word’, ‘irregardless’ IS a word. It has been for more than a century.

      Time to move on.

  115. Jack -  July 30, 2015 - 11:40 am

    I like to use the word at times to emphasize my point. Plus it ticks off all of the meloncholies that spend more time worrying about proper grammar instead of the message of what is being spoken. lol… And as far as calling someone ignorant for using it, I have found that most people use some form of slang when talking that they wouldn’t use when writing. Stop judging and being superior. It’s really not very becoming.

    • George Dean -  July 30, 2015 - 1:18 pm

      Dear Jack, It isn’t about being judgemental, superior or pedantic. It is about correctness and effectiveness of expression. Words have meaning, if you wish to accurately convey your precise meaning, use the correct words. If you believe that your use of incorrect language is doing a favor to your less educated audience, then you’re just being condescending and insulting.

      That is what is not very becoming, and lazy.

      • Mikkel -  July 31, 2015 - 8:09 am

        “It is about correctness and effectiveness of expression.” Read: pendantic.

        EVERYONE who hears ‘irregardless’ knows what the person is trying to say, it’s absolutely no barrier to accurately conveying meaning. You’re only making a fuss because you don’t like how it sounds, it’s got nothing to do with correctness (specifically it IS correct, ‘irregardless’ is a word, it’s in the dictionary and all, and is synonymous with ‘regardless’).

        I hate the word too, but it’s a personal thing. Language isn’t maths, redundancy isn’t illegal.

        • Kevin -  August 1, 2015 - 5:23 am

          I am a non-native speaker and I had not seen or heard the word ‘irregardless’ before. When I first read it, I tried to reason its meaning. I know ‘regardless’ so ‘irregardless’ must mean the opposite due to the prefix. However, this is not the case after all. ‘Irregardless’ simply means the same thing as ‘regardless,’ which is not logical. This is why I agree with George Dean about using “correct words to convey a precise meaning.”

        • Kay Cee -  August 2, 2015 - 7:04 pm

          @mikkel, I am a little on your side – that in general, we know what the speaker is trying to convey when he/she uses an unusual word. However, over the years, I am tending to see that there is formal written language and then there is informal written (email, notes, etc) or spoken language. The latter group is much more relaxed and prone to “bastardization”, misuse and mispronunciation.

          I think we are all accepting that any language exists in at least those two (or three or more) forms. Maybe a linguistics experts could “weigh in” to this discussion with some evidence-based conclusions. :)

    • Dr.J -  July 31, 2015 - 11:32 am

      English is such a rich and yet precise language and the spoken word and, indeed, other forms of communication generate new and sometimes interesting words. But why add a prefix to a word with the intention of leaving its actual meaning unchanged, but whose literal meaning returns to its root, ie. The root is regard. The suffix ‘less’ inverts the meaning and the prefix ‘ir’ should invert the meaning again, but doesn’t. So why do we need two words meaning exactly the same thing? Not synonyms, but the exact same meaning.

      Reminds me of a word I’ve only heard from Americans – usually scriptwriters – normalcy, as in ‘it was the end of the war and things were finally returning to normalcy’. The word is NORMALITY. It already exists, so we don’t need an identically meaning, made-up word to replace or accompany it, irregardlessly of what some people think.

  116. Nancy Huppertz -  July 30, 2015 - 11:35 am

    I find it interesting that some people know it’s wrong, but continue to use it.

  117. GrammaGirl -  July 30, 2015 - 11:24 am

    Logically, “irregardless” means the opposite of that intended by the speaker. “Irregardless” is a mistake, not a new word. Those who use it demonstrate language insecurity, not intelligence, by uttering this particular 4-syllable error. I agree with the view that our wonderful English language deserves more support and respect than this (i.e. accepting people’s errors because we don’t want to make them feel uneducated). Lighten up and stop being so afraid of offending people who commit grammatical errors.

    To those who use these kinds of “words” I say with a smile: Look it up! Rules…..rule! And that is “totally” cool. :-)

    • Mike Tatom -  July 30, 2015 - 12:59 pm

      Well said and I totally agree.

      • Ashley -  July 30, 2015 - 11:16 pm

        Well said, Grammagirl.

    • Mikkel -  July 31, 2015 - 8:10 am

      Irregardless is not a new word, you’re right. It’s actually over a century old now.

  118. Jane White -  July 30, 2015 - 11:18 am

    Illogical, irrespective of who uses it…

  119. Jonathan Farber PhD -  July 30, 2015 - 10:05 am

    I don’t use it, but I understand exactly what someone means when I hear it. It is the use of a second negative not to cancel out the first- but to amplify it, similar to when someone says the ice cream is very very cold. So, I do not think it is a self contradictory term. prefix modifies not the suffix but the root.

    • Captain Quirk -  July 30, 2015 - 1:21 pm

      But “very” is not a negative. A negative always reverses whatever it refers to, just like a negative number multiplied by a positive number results in a negative number (i.e., it negates the positive number) and a negative number multiplied by a negative number is always a positive number.

      So as the author said, “irregardless” means “not without regard’, which of course is the opposite of what a person saying “irregardless” actually means.

    • Frank -  August 9, 2015 - 1:03 pm

      You should get a PhD in English. Do you seriously think a double negative is similar to using a single adverb twice?

  120. Eloise O'Ryan -  July 30, 2015 - 10:04 am

    And we enjoy misspelling jokes. Lake ERIE is on of our beloved Grest Lakes.

    • Captain Quirk -  July 30, 2015 - 12:57 pm

      Where are the Grest Lakes located? Are they near Grest Falls, Montana? ;-)

    • Peter Salmon -  July 30, 2015 - 4:18 pm

      sorry didn’t realize this lol

  121. Eloise O'Ryan -  July 30, 2015 - 10:00 am

    Oh gee whiz,
    Would everyone remember the only “irre” in ” “irregardless” is one of the Great Lakes called Lake IRIE. Michiganders and our Great Lake neighnoring Staes must enjoy being remembeted. PURE MICHIGAN folks know proper English.

    • Peter Salmon -  July 30, 2015 - 4:17 pm

      I just want to point out that the great lake you speak of is lake ERIE not IRIE

    • Kayo -  August 1, 2015 - 9:38 pm

      I often wonder when I hear that term if the female counterpart is a Michigoose…

  122. Paul Wahler -  July 30, 2015 - 9:51 am

    I second the question “How about flammable and inflammable?” Please explain the proper usage of these two words. And perhaps there are other, similar, word pairs which fir this question.

    • Captain Quirk -  July 30, 2015 - 2:11 pm

      Strictly speaking, “inflammable” is the correct word. But in this unusual situation, there’s a safety issue. The authorities are understandably concerned that people may see “inflammable” on a tanker truck and think that it’s NOT dangerous due to the apparent negation from the “in-” prefix, when in fact the opposite is true. “Inflammable” does NOT mean “not combustible”, but it may appear that way to some people. So the word “flammable” is used to avoid possible life-threatening confusion.

  123. Opal -  July 30, 2015 - 9:01 am

    I have heard this word used by women mostly. Especially when they are mad!

  124. alan -  July 30, 2015 - 8:52 am

    Use of this word is a sign of ignorance of English grammar.

  125. DogLady -  July 30, 2015 - 8:23 am

    Although this is another word that is “alive and well” and being used by certain segments of society, it is still a double negative and therefore incorrect. Plus, by using it, the speaker’s or writer’s lack of education in grammar shows, plus their apathy about it. But they don’t care. ;-]
    I once had my parents cancel a publication because one writer consistently used bad grammar. The proofreader always missed it and the editor allowed it. So I took out a want ad in that paper for a proofreader, to respond to the same paper. The editor found me, and called to hire me. But I was only 14.

  126. Denise -  July 30, 2015 - 8:18 am

    Drives me crazy when someone uses this word – makes me want to correct them.

  127. Adele Edwards......................... -  July 30, 2015 - 8:17 am

    As far as I’m concerned, this is due to our American influence on re-writing the English language. He who is biggest wins!

    • Everett -  July 30, 2015 - 11:37 am

      You probably realize that all languages in use are continuously re-written. I share your frustration that we eventually adopt words that were completely misused, but that is reality. If it weren’t, you’d be chastised for not writing like the old testament.

      It really has nothing to do with America being big or powerful, although our massive entertainment industry floods the entire planet with popular terms. People in the poorest countries on earth re-write the language they use too, we just don’t read about it.

    • kay -  August 2, 2015 - 2:09 pm

      Just because a word is in the dictionary, because of continual use, does not make it acceptable as proper grammar. Today there are many smut words in the dictionary because segments of society have substituted them for decent speech. Many gutter language words are acknowledged in the dictionary because of usage, they are still parts of gutter language. Their usage does not make them acceptable as proper or decent.

  128. g.wilos -  July 30, 2015 - 7:58 am

    I’m so glad u used this word today, It irks me whenever I hear it and I automatically say, mostly to myself, ‘regardless’. Huh!

    • Dale Nichols -  July 30, 2015 - 10:42 am

      It irks me when anyone, but particularly someone who presumes to opine about grammar, replaces “you” with “u.”

  129. Janice Connard -  July 30, 2015 - 7:17 am

    How about flammable and inflammable

    • Jason Roberts -  July 30, 2015 - 2:29 pm

      The prefix “in-”has different meanings. In the case of “inflammable,” it means, well, “in,” like the prefix “en-” to cause something to be in a particular state. Think of “encourage” or “entrust.”

      “Inflammable” comes from “inflame” or “enflame.” It existed long before the word flammable was even a twinkle in the OED’s eye. But some people were confused because the prefix “in-” can mean the same as “un-” so the much clearer word “flammable” was coined. No confusion there: that thing is gonna burn!

      I’ve heard that the National Fire Protection Association was responsible for the popularity of the word and it’s overtaking inflammable, but don’t quote me on that.

      • Jason Roberts -  July 30, 2015 - 2:31 pm

        “…and its overtaking inflammable.”

        Some days I’d kill for a magic Internet “edit” button.

        • Kayo -  August 1, 2015 - 9:54 pm

          LOL – I took your original meaning to be “it is overtaking” so had no problem with it, but you were the writer and knew what you meant to say…

    • Captain Quirk -  July 30, 2015 - 3:16 pm

      Strictly speaking, “inflammable” is the correct word. But in this unusual situation, there’s a safety issue. The authorities are understandably concerned that people may see “inflammable” on a tanker truck and think that it’s NOT dangerous due to the apparent negation from the “in-” prefix, when in fact the opposite is true.

      “Incoherent”, “insufficient”, and “incompetent” (for example) mean “not coherent”, “not sufficient”, and “not competent”. So it’s understandable that “Inflammable” might be understood to mean that the chemicals at issue are not combustible, but of course that is not the case. So the word “flammable” is used to avoid possible life-threatening confusion.

      • BruceS -  August 2, 2015 - 9:35 am

        Haha – these worried “authorities” presume that would-be confused drivers will take their eyes off their phones long enough to read the signage… Just sayin’…

  130. Peter of Canada -  July 30, 2015 - 7:08 am

    Regardless of who used what words and for how long, we are not amused. Okay, maybe we are a little giggly.

  131. bita -  July 30, 2015 - 7:06 am

    Thank you.

  132. Jeff -  July 30, 2015 - 7:01 am

    Why not just use irrespective and save all the hassle?

  133. r. defonte -  July 30, 2015 - 7:00 am

    Regardless of whether or not it is a valid word, grammatically it is incorrect in its usage. When one uses it, they in fact are saying the opposite of their intention and I will challenge them every time, cannot help myself. I am one of those grammar lovers and it gets under my skin, ugh!

    • Duchess of Punctuation -  August 4, 2015 - 10:55 am

      When one uses it, one is, in fact, saying the opposite of his or her intention; and I will ……

      Sorry, I just had to….

  134. SuperDave -  July 30, 2015 - 6:50 am

    My parents frequently used this term, much to my annoyance. I personally think it’s an unintentional mashup of “irrespective” and “regardless”.

    • Kay Cee -  August 2, 2015 - 7:12 pm

      I reckon so, pardner.

  135. Chrys -  July 30, 2015 - 6:50 am

    This is the most heinous NON-word that has ever existed. Just because ill-educated people use it does not mean it should be included in a dictionary. When it is it promotes the use of it and further drags our language into the depths of degradation.

    In my oh-so-humble opinion, it should be stomped on at every opportunity.

  136. John -  July 30, 2015 - 6:47 am

    I will not use it irregardless irregardless of what you say.

    • Kay Cee -  August 2, 2015 - 7:14 pm

      @John, don’t you mean “I will not use irregardless irregardless of what you say”??? Is the “it” superfluous?

      And by the way, Google Chrome marks irregardless as a spelling mistake. :)

  137. GAren Wimer -  July 30, 2015 - 6:46 am

    My bookkeeper and I have had many disagreements over this word. I dislike the use of it.

  138. Jan K -  July 30, 2015 - 6:40 am

    The word seems also to be a combination of “regardless” and “irrespective”.

  139. Shada -  July 30, 2015 - 6:32 am

    Thank you! This ‘word’and usage has annoyed me for a long time. It’s cousin is the phrase ‘I don’t disagree’…. Oh my!

    You made my day. Now I have something to show my beloved young daughter.

    • Ricky Forguson -  July 30, 2015 - 1:29 pm

      I have to disagree with your genealogy here. “I don’t disagree” is an example of litotes, a literary term used for understatement by negating the negative of what you really mean like: “Your grammar doesn’t suck!” or “It’s not a bad idea.”

  140. Kristen Frederick -  July 30, 2015 - 6:19 am

    Yes, I’m sure it’s in the dictionary, but that doesn’t make it any less declasse.

  141. dara -  July 30, 2015 - 6:19 am

    I bet there are tons of words like this. I like that it’s clunky :D

  142. Bradford Pulleyblank -  July 30, 2015 - 6:17 am

    Finally, funnily! It’s always been awkward pointing out this double-negative is probably the most abused single-word oxymoron in the lexicon of American English. And those speaking it are typically trying to sound more intelligent by adding another syllable to a 3-syllable word! Umm, I just hope I’m using “lexicon” & “oxymoron” correctly to sound more intelligent?

    • Kayo -  August 1, 2015 - 10:02 pm

      “Lexicon” yes, “oxymoron” no.

      • Bradford P. -  August 4, 2015 - 4:48 pm

        Kudos, Kayo! You’re right, because oxymoron is a ‘plural’ noun; that is, at least a couple words or a phrase containing contradictory terms. Best – B.P.

  143. CarlJ -  July 30, 2015 - 6:15 am

    I will use this word from time to time, irregardless of what others may think of me.

  144. Y V Janardana Murty -  July 30, 2015 - 6:12 am

    Two negatives make one positive. This rule well applies to this word. But the usage of this word is rare and minimal

  145. henry meister -  July 30, 2015 - 5:58 am

    … i like “irregardlessly” most best.

    • Kayo -  August 1, 2015 - 10:04 pm

      Literally LOL!!

  146. Dory -  July 30, 2015 - 5:54 am

    I agree, words like that one make my inner ear cringe just reading them.

  147. Leo -  July 30, 2015 - 5:27 am

    Irregardless, if you use it most people will understand what you mean.

  148. Leo -  July 30, 2015 - 5:26 am

    Irregardless, if you use it most people will understand exactly what you mean.

  149. Aimee -  July 30, 2015 - 5:15 am

    Regardful isn’t a word though and to say ‘with regard’ in place of irregardless seems too formal for a standard conversation

    • Frank -  August 9, 2015 - 1:35 pm

      Too formal? You’re not allowed to use proper grammar in a casual conversation? Too formal would be using the word chiaroscuro with someone who says they like to finger paint.

  150. john kaza -  July 30, 2015 - 5:12 am

    Irregardless how long she used it, she was so very wrong.

  151. john kaza -  July 30, 2015 - 5:10 am

    Irregardless how long she used it, she was wrong

  152. Cynthia Rowley -  July 30, 2015 - 4:02 am

    To use the term irregardless, I suggest you picture a car crossing a railroad track without slowing down. Regardless of the damage he might do to his car, he crossed the track at top speed. The driver crossed the railroad tracks at top speed, irregardless of the oncoming train. I am implying he took regard, in the second sentence, but then decided to proceed. A purposful decision, as opposed to a decision made without any consideration. What is the speaker really trying to say?

  153. khaliq abdul -  July 30, 2015 - 3:49 am

    A dictionary full of knowledge I ever found ….keep it up

  154. Helen -  July 30, 2015 - 12:29 am

    I mean Emma not you heather Covington

  155. Helen -  July 30, 2015 - 12:28 am

    That’so just rude

  156. heather covington -  July 29, 2015 - 1:19 pm

    How funny! My grandmother used this term for years!

    • olaitan mary -  July 30, 2015 - 6:29 am

      hmm I have learnt its preferable using regardless

    • Martha -  July 30, 2015 - 6:35 am

      Great to know!

    • Martin Platts -  July 30, 2015 - 7:06 am

      I always use the word, its amazing how complicated the grammar teachers make everything.when really it is not.

      • Pea -  July 30, 2015 - 11:17 am

        @ Martin Platts. ‘Irregardless’ is not a word, regardless of how often you put it into use. Furthermore, your sentence is riddled with grammatical inconsistencies; you are no one to judge the complexities of a grammar teacher’s job.


Reply Cancel

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked (required):

Related articles

Back to Top