Concerning ‘Irregardless’ - Time to Fight Absurdity with Absurdity
Have you ever debated the validity of the word ‘irregardless’? I have on at least two occasions (and I’m not sure I was on the same side each time). The word itself sounds so legitimate that an uncritical ear is likely to let it pass without giving it a second thought. More precise minds, however, object bitterly, complaining that ‘irregardless’ is not a real word, but a foolish confusion of ‘irrespective’ and ‘regardless’.
Turns out, this debate is not (as I thought) a new one. In fact, Literary Digest published an article in 1923 titled “Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?” Since then, our dictionaries have done nothing toward settling the question. Webster waffles so violently as to both insist that the word is real and adjure you not to use it.
I myself am quite conflicted. I am generally a great believer in making up words, considering language to be a playground for the cheekily quick-witted. (For instance I am the only proponent, that I know of, of using the word ‘underlap’ to refer to a gap.) On the other hand, my engineer’s mind can have little sympathy for using ‘irregardless’ to mean the same as ‘regardless’, rendering the prefix ‘irr’ an unconventional NOP.
My solution, an elegant one I believe, is to encourage the use of the word - but as an antonym of ‘regardless’, rather than a synonym. In this way it could be used in all sorts of delightfully quirky constructions such as:
- People can vote in the US irregardless of age.
- Lifetime expectancy has gone up irregardless of medical advances.
- Carrie Underwood had talent, and she won American Idol irregardless.
- Macs are the best computers irregardless of what you need one for.
- All people go to heaven irregardless.
Now I don’t expect you to go on a crusade (because I know my audience), but when the subject comes up, (despite your best efforts?) you can take now a position no one will expect.