Irregardless and other Repeat-a-toids and Double Negatives

[SkipVought]

Regardless: Without regard, anyway

Respective: Relating to two or more persons or things regarded individually

Irrespective: Regardless

THEREFORE

Irregardless: With regard

Or did I start with an illogical premise and proceed with perfect logic to an illogical conclusion?



Skip,
[sub]
[red]Be advised:[/red]
Alcohol and Calculus do not mix!
If you drink, don't derive! [/sub]

 

[sleipnir214]

No, your conclusion is logical.

Use of irregardless is nonstandard, illogical, and perverse. But that doesn't stop people from using it.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

Now... ending the post in "Skip"... Does that mean we should skip the post, or read it?

 

[SkipVought]

BRPS, you DO remember 1984, and the "memory hole"?

Or "Mission Impossible," where, "The Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck, Jim. "

Skip,
[sub]
[red]Be advised:[/red]
Alcohol and Calculus do not mix!
If you drink, don't derive! [/sub]

 

[ESquared]

Use of irregardless is nonstandard, illogical, and perverse. But that doesn't stop people from using it.

I can't believe you of all people would say this! Isn't it the evolution of language by consensus?

-------------------------------------
A sacrifice is harder when no one knows you've made it.

 

[CajunCenturion]

And just who is part of the consensus?

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[ESquared]

Well, everyone knows what people mean when they say irregardless, so there's a consensus, isn't there?

But, I was being mildly fractious, please ignore my comments, I won't make any more on the subject in this thread.

-------------------------------------
A sacrifice is harder when no one knows you've made it.

 

[SkipVought]

Con-Sensus

Just WHO are we polling here?

Skip,
[sub]
[red]Be advised:[/red]
Alcohol and Calculus do not mix!
If you drink, don't derive! [/sub]

 

[AnotherHiggins]

If you come down my way, Irregardless is a restaurant-café.

 

[CajunCenturion]

There may be a consensus as to the meaning of that word, but that does not necessarily imply a consensus that its continued use is a positive step in language evolution.

Good Luck
--------------
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[rosieb]

It's not in the OED

Rosie
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think" (Niels Bohr)

 

[ESquared]

CajunCenturion,

You are preaching to the choir!

I sure do get myself in trouble when I use shorthand and expect people to be able to decipher it...

-------------------------------------
A sacrifice is harder when no one knows you've made it.

 

[Katy44]

Don't people normally use the word when they mean 'regardless' though? Or am I completely missing the point here?

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

Don't people normally use the word when they mean 'regardless' though?

I don't think that I've ever heard anyone use the word "irregardless" instead of "regardless".

Isn't it lucky we haven't got the same issue with "irrespective" and "respective"!

Dan

 

[SkipVought]

Dan,

I hear "irregardless" instead of "regardless" often enough that I grit my teeth and grimace. It's not quite as "bad" as a Norm Crosby, which I can enjoy and laugh at.


Skip,
[sub]
[red]Be advised:[/red]
Alcohol and Calculus do not mix!
If you drink, don't derive! [/sub]

 

[GwydionM]

Human languages are written for humans, not machines. Which means that not never saying double negatives is not necessary. People will understand what is meant, even if the grammer offends them.

Only with brainless automata is logical precession necessary. Or in maths, where the material is so complex and unfamiliar that intuition is a poor guide.

------------------
A view from the UK

 

[strongm]

The OED may not carry it, but the Cambridge dictionaries do ...

... and they agree with sleipnir214, describing its use/existence as 'not standard'

It is also described as a US term.

Ah - and Webster agrees: early 20th century American dialectal term, blah, non-standard, blah, blah, long way from being accepted; use regardless instead

 

[Jomama46]

Sounds like a flamable, I mean inflamable subject.

Jomama

 

[Dimandja]

Interesting how this whole thing is raveling... huh... unraveling. It's almost like boning... huh... deboning a turkey.

 

[strongm]

flammable versus inflammable at least has the defencethat each word is actually derived from a different root (the 'in' is not a negating prefix)