The sniveling, weak-kneed language police at Merriam-Webster have just
caved and let "irregardless" out of idiomatic lock-down.
According to their justification: "It may not be a word that you
like, or a word that you would use in a term paper, but irregardless certainly
is a word. It has been in use for well over 200 years, employed by a large
number of people across a wide geographic range and with a consistent meaning.
That is why we, and well-nigh every other dictionary of modern English, define
this word. Remember that a definition is not an endorsement of a word’s
use."
And with that little disclaimer at the end they figure they're covered.
Whitie must be laughing his rear-end off somewhere because it was one of
his favorite words whenever he was trying to provide a didactic explanation of
just about anything. As in "Dan, irregardless of what you may think,
you're wrong about this and I'm right."
To which I would say, "Regardless, it's regardless. Irregardless
isn't a word."
Reddening he would say, "Yes, well, regardless, or irregardless,
I'm right, smartass." (Which also isn't a word).
Webster says irregardless is a "nonstandard" (which I would
hyphenate) equivalent of regardless. But it's not. It's a nonsensical word that
negates itself by indicating NOT regardless when it is clearly used to mean
regardless. If irrespective means "without respect to", then
irregardless is a veritable double negative meaning "without, without
regard to," or in other words, NOT regardless at all but with regard to,
since the "ir" prefix negates the "less" suffix, leaving
the root word "regard" standing alone.
While we're at it, why don't we just add supposably, non-defunct,
unequivocably, and unthaw to the dictionary as well?
Might as well go whole hog!
No comments:
Post a Comment