Re: irregardless

[Nicky Avery <nicky@xxxxxxxxx>]

alfa-digest wrote:

> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:49:01 -0700
> From: "Timothy Leigh Rodgers" <timothy@domain.elided>
> Subject: Re:re:irregardless
>
> According to Webster's New International Dictionary there is indeed a word
> 'irregardless.'  The definition is-----> 'regardless!'
>
> Timothy
From Webster Online

> Main Entry: *ir7re7gard7less*
> <javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?irrega01.wav=irregardless')>
> Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gdrd-l&s
> Function: /adverb/
> Etymology: probably blend of /irrespective /and /regardless/
> Date: circa 1912
> /nonstandard/ *: REGARDLESS
> <http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=regardless>*
> *usage* /Irregardless /originated in dialectal American speech in the
> early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to
> the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most
> frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word."
> There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech,
> although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its
> reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way
> from general acceptance. Use /regardless /instead.

By that reckoning, if enough people abuse a word, it becomes
grammatical. Politically correct, perhaps, but "irregardless" is an ugly
double negative.

Maybe Webster should go back to fixing his Alpha Romero ....

Nicky
--
to be removed from alfa, see /bin/digest-subs.cgi
or email "unsubscribe alfa" to majordomo@domain.elided