RSS LJ

March 23, 2010

In defense of "irregardless" ()

by fluffy at 8:40 AM
Yes, it's an ugly word and a neologism, and yes it should probably be avoided in favor of "irrespective." However, it is not necessarily the case that it is a double negative; the ir/in/im prefix isn't only a negative! It also means "upon" (irrigate, irritate, irradiate, irrupt, impugn) or "toward" (invigorate), and can be an emphatic (inflammable, indeed).

It's a less common usage of the prefix, granted, but that doesn't make it invalid.

"Irregardless" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Comments

#12969 03/23/2010 12:49 pm
"Inflammable" is kind of unnecessary-syllables-ahoy, itself.
#12970 03/23/2010 12:57 pm
I don't personally share the pretense that languages should be optimized towards maximal concision. There is a great deal of expressiveness that can be achieved simply by having a wide variety of the verbiage available at one's command.

It is easy to go overboard, though.
#12971 03/23/2010 01:00 pm
Actually, the history of "flammable" vs. "inflammable" (which I just looked up) is interesting - both come from valid Latin word roots, but sometime after WWII there was a push to make "flammable" the standard for safety signs, lest someone misinterpret "inflammable" to mean "not flammable" and have an unfortunate immolation experience.
#12972 03/23/2010 01:01 pm
Yeah, in that situation, having as little variation as possible is undeniably a good thing.

Also, the "in/ir/im-as-intensifier" justification for "irregardless" is sort of a retroactive one, since it really did come from a portmanteau of "regardless" and "irrespective," in which it's "in/ir/im-as-negation."
#12973 03/23/2010 07:58 pm
"Infamous?"

"I think that means more than famous."


- one of the best exchanges from The Three Amigos