Regarding Irregardless

Regardless first appeared in the mid-16th century as a description meaning “not worthy of attention.” That definition is obsolete, but perhaps it shouldn’t be. In fact, it may be the best label for the current debate about irregardless, which reignited last week when Merriam Webster defended the inclusion of irregardless in its dictionary. Much outrage ensued, regardless of the fact that Merriam Webster and many other respected dictionaries have listed the word for years. All label it “nonstandard” and some “humorous.”

As I write this, many issues are indeed worthy of attention: the pandemic, injustice, and climate change, to name just three. In that context irregardless can’t compete. In fact, even had 2020 not proved to be a strong candidate for “Scariest Year of Our Lifetime,” the status of irregardless would mostly be irrelevant.

Granted, it’s a double-negative. The prefix ir- means “without,” as does the suffix -less, so irregardless, as many commentators have pointed out, effectively translates to “without without regard.” English sometimes adds two negatives and gets a positive (“I couldn’t not ask for a raise,” for example, means “I had to ask for a raise”), yet no one thinks the Rolling Stones are expressing contentment with “I can’t get no satisfaction.” Anyone who knows what regardless means also knows what irregardless means.

Here’s the thing: language lives. It often moves from (1) that’s not a real word! to (2) it’s a real word but educated people don’t use it to (3) class, remember to double the R when you write “irregardless.” We’re currently in stage two.

Regardless of everything I just wrote, I do support standards, and I most definitely support teaching them. Like it or not, what executives and academics deem “proper” matters when it comes time to hire, fire, and grade. Knowing the rules is important — but so is knowing that rules change. Irregardless of my personal preference for regardless, irregardless may someday switch from “nonstandard” to “standard.” I suspect the world, and the English language, will survive.

11 thoughts on “Regarding Irregardless

  1. Gabrielle Bauer

    “Irregardless” rankles me more than many other linguistic drifts because of its blatant illogic. Call me elitist, but I see it as a victory of the linguistically tone-deaf over those who understand and appreciate language.

    Reply
    1. Geraldine Post author

      I can’t see myself using the word, and I do understand your reaction. That said, the language has many illogical aspects: “flammable” and “inflammable,” for example, both mean “easily set on fire.”

      Reply
  2. Orli

    (Ir)regardless (sic!) of whether it’s an accepted word, I neither have to use it myself nor must I like it!

    Wonderful commentary as always!!!

    Reply
  3. Ellie Presner

    Nice post! “Irregardless” makes me shudder! It’s so wrong, seeing it in the dictionary… why, it’s almost as bad as “ain’t”! Oh… wait a sec… “ain’t” is *also* in the dictionary. Sighhh.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *