4 ms·

>irregardless That's not a word, ironically enough.

• kaishiro 6y ago
  I believe the entire comment was tongue-cheeked.
  • spodek 6y ago
    Yes, I was being ironical.
    • JohnStrangeII 6y ago
      I didn't see it immediately either, it's amazing how good my brain auto-corrected "maximalize" and "minimilize" without me even noticing.
• jhfdbkofdcho 6y ago
  Merriam-Webster raised the hackles of stodgy grammarians last week when it affirmed the lexical veracity of "irregardless." The word's definition, when reading it, would seem to be: without without regard. "Irregardless is included in our dictionary because it has been in widespread and near-constant use since 1795," the dictionary's staff wrote in a "Words of the Week" roundup on Friday. "We do not make the English language, we merely record it." Merriam-Webster defines irregardless as "nonstandard" but meaning the same as "regardless." "Many people find irregardless to be a nonsensical word, as the ir- prefix usually functions to indicates negation; however, in this case it appears to function as an intensifier," the dictionary writes. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/07/887649010/regardless-of-what-you-think-irregardless-is-a-word https://www.npr.org/2020/07/07/887649010/regardless-of-what-...
  • dingaling 6y ago
    > "We do not make the English language, we merely record it." Which is an evasion, because they know they are respected as an authority on the language and therefore they do actually make the language, or at least legitimise mis-use.