The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsThe hottest of hot takes: "Irregardless"
I know this is a bit of a hot take, but I'm going to make it anyway.
I think we need to give "irregardless" a bit of its due.
Now, hear me out.
No, first and foremost, "irregardless" is *not* an actual word. So let's make that clear from the get-go.
However, I will say this. Strictly as a non-word, "irregardless" flows off the tongue wonderfully. It contains the right combination of letters and sounds that give it an almost musical-like quality.
Contrast that with "regardless" and "irrespective," both of which *are* proper words. They're clunky. They're abrupt. They're jagged. Neither are very much fun at all to say, regardless and irrespective of the fact that they actually mean what they are intended to mean.
And that's why "irregardless" is so tempting to use over its proper and standard counterparts. When you say "irregardless," you are almost tempted to give a little flourish of the hand while saying it just as a matter of emphasis. And neither "regardless" nor "irrespective" give you any desire whatsoever to do that.
Try it.
"Irregardless." **Flourish of hand**
Fun, right?
So even though "irregardless" has been savagely vilified as a non-word--not unlike how Pluto has become vilified as a non-planet in recent years--there's a certain rationale behind its use that I can understand and with which I can sympathize. And while I don't support it being entered into lexicon as a proper word, perhaps it should be given some sort of semi-formal status. A "Word Emeritus," perhaps?
But, on the other hand, "A whole nother"?
Now that shit's just fucking moronic sophistry.
Related story:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/06/is-irregardless-a-real-word-dictionary?fbclid=IwAR0IwSkxpDDFpYp62wvwdmdFDqZML7pv6kweRTgzPGpafcc-oehLCz14xUk
JenniferJuniper
(4,515 posts)unblock
(52,328 posts)i agree with the merriam-webster analysis. being a "word" isn't based on it being useful or non-redundant or intrinsically logical.
being a word is based on usage, and "irregardless" meets the standard. enough people use it, and have used it for a long, long time.
so it's a word, even if it doesn't make sense from an etymological perspective.
there are lots of words that might provoke similar reactions. "aks", meaning "ask", is a word. similarly, it's been used for ages and enough people continue to use it, so it's a word. deal with it.
now, which words one might choose to use in which context, that's an entirely different matter.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Maybe 2nd to "behooves".
Aristus
(66,462 posts)Every thing they say, no matter how important or inconsequential, no matter how serious the situation, or how fraught the need for haste and simplicity, if an enlisted man or a junior officer is speaking to a superior officer, they hammer out "SIR!" as if they were undergoing inspection in Basic Training.
When I was in, soldiers usually forged a close bond with their officers that obviated the need for such formality. We always addressed them as per regulations as 'sir'. But it was inflected no differently than if we had called them 'buddy' or pal'.
I remember in "Die Hard 2", some soldier told his commander "Pentagon briefing room on the phone, SIR!". Now, his commander is someone he had likely worked with for a couple of years. But that snappy Hollywood "SIR" was still there.
In Saving Private Ryan, an infantryman under fire on the beach is imploring Tom Hanks to lead them out of harm's way: "What do we do now? SIR!!!"
Any seasoned soldier can only roll his or her eyes...
fleur-de-lisa
(14,628 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)3catwoman3
(24,051 posts)Ron Obvious
(6,261 posts)And therefore fail:
Different Drummer
(7,646 posts)DD