Lately I've been noticing more and more people using the word "irregardless," and every time I hear it, I want to raise my hand and be like, "Oooh, Oooh, Mr. Kotter, that's not a word!!!"
(Except I don't because I know how totally obnoxious that would be.)
In any case, when people use the word "irregardless" they usually mean "regardless." Adding the extra negative modifier doesn't change the word.
Then again, the people I hear using it are generally very intelligent people. So you'd think people like that wouldn't use a word that was so blatantly wrong. So maybe "irregardless" has been used incorrectly so many times that it's now correct. Just like "flammable" and "inflammable" now mean the same thing and are both correct.
I checked Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, and they seem to say that it's controversial whether "irregardless" is a word. Irregardless, it seems that people use it a lot.
Irrespective of what the all knowing Wikipedia says, the use of irregardless, when the speaker means either regardless or irrespective makes me gnash my teeth! I am convinced in some people's brains, irrespective somehow got morphed into irregardless, and the rest is history. George W. Bush used to say it all the time....but, he could not say nuclear either (it ain't nuw-quuue-laar, George). Just because a lot of people use a word wrong, do we have to accept it as the new right?
ReplyDeleteThere's a blog by a dictionary person addressing this recently: http://korystamper.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/no-logic-in-etymological-a-response-i-actually-sent/ (Not my blog, but it's a good one.)
ReplyDeleteJan
This drives me as crazy as "graduating high school" (college, etc.) instead of graduating FROM high school, etc. I see it all the time now.
ReplyDeleteSheila
I have the same problem with using 'literally' when you mean 'figuratively'.
Deletee.g. OMG, I literally died when he told me that!
I hate the literally thing too. On the Daily Show the other night, Jon Stewart was making fun of a politician for saying we were "*literally* building terrorist command centers" at the WTC site. He was like, "Why would we do that???"
DeleteOr "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less". When you say "I could care less" it actually means you care which is normally the opposite of what the person means.
ReplyDeleteOh thank you so much! I am soothed by knowing someone else gets annoyed by that, too.
Deletehttp://actionstalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/could-care-less.jpg
DeleteAgreed!!!
ReplyDeleteMad props to all my fellow grammar cops! Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteThe nauseous-nauseated problem bugs me. I favor using "nauseous" for referring to something that makes you want to vomit and using "nauseated" for referring to how you feel when you want to vomit. However, I feel like these words have become interchangeable lately.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you, Kaysey. Back in the Dark Ages when I was studying to be a nurse, the difference that you describe was really followed. If you want to throw some confusion around, when someone asks you if you are nauseous, you can always respond, "I hope not." TCG
DeleteI had an attending in med school who used to be really gung ho about the whole nauseous/nauseated thing, but actually, I looked it up and that's one of those situations where it's gotten misused so often that they really have become officially interchangeable in the English language.
DeleteThe difference is, "flammable" and "inflammable" are both legitimate (the latter is from the same Latin source as "inflame"). "Irregardless" is just redundant, perhaps a blend of "regardless" and "irrespective."
ReplyDeleteI'm on a mission to get disirregardless used so that it's mathematically correct with three negatives.
ReplyDelete