The intrusive prefix: Irregardless

Xelebes · Apr 11, 2017

King Neptune said:
So exactly what is your problem regarding"irregardless"? To anyone who knows the English language reasonably well, that word makes no sense, and that is why it is not considered an actual word by most authorities. Do you think it should be considered a valid word, or what? If it were a valid word, then what would it mean?

I am asking why it continues to be used as a word for more than a century now. The question is: if it is being used so consistently, is it simply a mistake or is that mistake an example of an intrusive prefix that draws from old rules in the English language? And if that is the case, what is the rule and does it change the context of its usage over the correct word?

AW Admin · Apr 11, 2017

Xelebes said:
The non-productive prefixes I refer to is a-. As in abash, abroad, astern, etc. It's not quite ir-, but I thought I would ask due to its phonetic similarity. This problem is so persistent.

Xelebes said:
I am asking why it continues to be used as a word for more than a century now. The question is: if it is being used so consistently, is it simply a mistake or is that mistake an example of an intrusive prefix that draws from old rules in the English language? And if that is the case, what is the rule and does it change the context of its usage over the correct word?

It's a mistake. It's not gaining acceptance at the rate of, say, alright.

It's based on ignorance more than anything else, and doesn't follow the rules for particles in English; it's reduplicative, and that's not a trait English preserves.

Since irregardless doesn't fill a need (it serves the same function and is a synonym for the correct word regardless) I see no reason to tolerate it.

King Neptune · Apr 11, 2017

Xelebes said:
I am asking why it continues to be used as a word for more than a century now. The question is: if it is being used so consistently, is it simply a mistake or is that mistake an example of an intrusive prefix that draws from old rules in the English language? And if that is the case, what is the rule and does it change the context of its usage over the correct word?

Why?
Because people get things wrong. That non-word is as wrong now as it was the first time someone used it by mistakes.

Xelebes · Apr 11, 2017

AW Admin said:
It's a mistake. It's not gaining acceptance at the rate of, say, alright.

It's based on ignorance more than anything else, and doesn't follow the rules for particles in English; it's reduplicative, and that's not a trait English preserves.

Since irregardless doesn't fill a need (it serves the same function and is a synonym for the correct word regardless) I see no reason to tolerate it.

There is no question that the word, as it stands, is wrong. Irregardless is wrong.

But I also think something else is going on. If I am going to guess, I think it has to do with the fact that people imagine that there are many uses of the word that have it treated as a preposition as opposed to an adverb.

Let's go through this list of proper uses of the word "regardless".

http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/regardless

There are some instances there which can be potentially replaced by prepositions (like ahead, astern, before) but not adverbs (very, quickly.) And others which are best potentially replaced with adverbs and not prepositions.

Constructions like "Regardless of" give the impression that it is a preposition. Constructions like "Regardless, xxx" give the impression that is is an adverb. So I am openly wondering if the instances where we are tempted to use "irregardless" may be better replaced with a word like "aregardless" so that we can build constructions like "Aregardless of whether you think this is a good idea or not, this is certainly stupid."

Most likely not an improvement, but eh. Giving it some thought before I discard it.

Twick · Apr 12, 2017

Maybe "irregardful"?

morngnstar · Apr 12, 2017

Xelebes said:
We know the word "Irregardless" is wrong because the prefix negates the intended meaning. But we still add a prefix to the word when we speak. If the prefix is added, why are we adding the prefix?

Now, if I am going to guess, the prefix we are saying is a-, not i*-. A- is surmised to be non-productive in the English language. We typically do not create new words with the German (ge-, an-, ar-, o-) or Latin (ex-, ad-, ab-) derived prefixes. But are we attempting to use similar non-productive affixes with productive affixes? And if so, what does that prefix mean?

What prefix "a-"? As in atypical, asexual, asymptomatic? That prefix also negates the meaning, and so wouldn't make sense.

I think people are just making an analogy to other words like irrelevant, irreverent, irreligious. Most people reason by analogy more than logic. Also, in terms of descriptive linguistics, syntactic double negatives are observed, even if that don't make no sense. Not surprising to also find morphological double negatives. Natural language doesn't follow the rules of logic. The rule that negating a negative makes a positive doesn't apply to descriptive linguistics.

It's also easy to mishear regardless as irregardless, because R is a sonorant sound that can easily be mistaken for a syllable.

Seven Crowns · Apr 12, 2017

People are just hearing other words and making a hypercorrection, I think. It's funny. They're doing it to sound proper.

irresponsible, irregular, irrelevant, irreplaceable, irreverent, irrevocable, irresistible . . . I can't think of any more. :tongue

Words beginning with ir- sound so staid. I wonder why that is?

Xelebes · Apr 12, 2017

morngnstar said:
What prefix "a-"? As in atypical, asexual, asymptomatic? That prefix also negates the meaning, and so wouldn't make sense.

See, this is what I am talking about about the productivity of the prefix. The prefix a- is only productive if we use the Greek origin one. The German and the Latin ones are obsolete and therefore don't make new words.

I think in this guess, we are using the Old English ge- or an- which in modern English is rendered with a schwa.

AW Admin · Apr 12, 2017

Xelebes said:
See, this is what I am talking about about the productivity of the prefix. The prefix a- is only productive if we use the Greek origin one. The German and the Latin ones are obsolete and therefore don't make new words.

I think in this guess, we are using the Old English ge- or an- which in modern English is rendered with a schwa.

Xelebes. Get a good dictionary and read the etymologies. This is HEL 101. Even the links I've included cover it. Read the Usage note from here.

Go to a library and read the OED entries for the six a- variants.

The intrusive prefix: Irregardless

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

AW Admin

King Neptune

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

Twick

morngnstar

Seven Crowns

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

AW Admin