I find the case against the word 'irregardless' a fascinating cultural phenomenon. It ought to be a word. Three reasons:

1) 'Ir-' as a prefix is not always negative, cf. 'radiate', 'irradiate'. It is the Latin prefix 'in-' when in front of an 'r'. 'In-' as a prefix may just mean 'in'. Cf. 'indent.'

2) Given the above, consider 'flammable' and 'inflammable'. It would be unreasonable to make such a strong case against 'irregardless' if you accept 'inflammable' in standard, formal English.

3) It has been in use for a long time. English is full of synonyms (see above). I see nothing inherently illogical about 'irregardless', given that it's not necessarily a double-negative, and is clearly not used as such by most people.
Bradley Wentworth | 08.05.09 - 12:48 pm | #