Isn't "irregardless" an oxymoron?

Question

I hear intelligent people use it. It seems to be an oxymoron, or redundant. What is the opposite of regardless? Doesnt the prefix "ir" indicate "not" or "against" or "opposed to"? Doesnt the word regardless mean the same. If the word is correct than what is its' linguistic term or catagory and please site usage. I go around this with friends of mine who usually come over to my way of seeing it although none of us are educated in usage and structure. Thank you for answering. I suppose word check answered partially. Ha Ha

Answer 1

Well, first off, it's not really a word people who have half a brain should be using.

Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Answer 2

According to Merriam-Webster: The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

The Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage felt so strongly about lawyers using the correct term that the editor listed regardless and irregardless. The dictionary clearly explains the correct usage for both of these words. Regardless (=without regard to) should not be used for despite (=in spite of). E.g., "The appellants voted to reject the plan, reiterating the grounds for their suit against Martin; regardless of [read "despite’] the appellants vote, the plan was approved by two-thirds of the creditors voting for the plan." Irregardless is a "semiliterate word formed from irrespective and regardless that should long ago have been stamped out." Irregardless is common enough in speech in the U.S. that it has found its way into judicial opinions. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Chief Justice William Rehnquist "upbraided a lawyer who used irregardless, saying: "I feel bound to inform you there is no word irregardless in the English language. The word is regardless. Linguistic Fastidiousness is no less important in oral than written argument."

World Wide Words - The word is thoroughly and consistently condemned in all American references I can find. But it’s also surprisingly common. It’s formed from regardless by adding the negative prefix ir-; as regardless is already negative, the word is considered a logical absurdity. That’s strange because, as Professor Laurence Horn of Yale University points out, the duplication of negative affixes is actually quite common in English. But in many other languages—and in some local or dialectal forms of English both today and in earlier times—multiple negatives are intensifiers, adding emphasis.

An English Professor's Rules for the correct use of English (note number 24) - http://people.uncw.edu/veit/local/the_rules.htm


An oxymoron may generally refer to a contradiction in terms; not only to contradictory words as suggested by another respondent. Despite that, I'm not sure whether "irregardless" qualifies as an oxymoron or is simply poor usage.

Answer 3

Previous answerers are correct in stating that it is an example of hypercorrection/connfusion of irrespective and regardless.

It's also worth noting that some words actually do creep into the language as a result of this and similar processes. One example is 'flammable' - widely used in English - which actually means exactly the same as the older word 'inflammable'. In this case the original 'inflammable' came from the verb to 'inflame'. However, whoever originally coined 'flammable' assumed wrongly that 'inflammable' was from the root to 'flame'. Hence the current confusion where firefighters have to know that a truck marked 'flammable' is no more or less dangerous than a truck marked 'inflammable'.

Answer 4

No, "irregardless" isn't considered an oxymoron. An oxymoron is two words used together, that separately could be opposites. "Irregardless" is simply incorrect usage; the word doesn't exist. If I were to categorize it, I would call it "hypercorrection" -- an attempt to be excruciatingly correct when in fact the result is incorrect.

Answer 5

Yes, "ir-" negates whatever comes after it.

It would make more sense if we said something like "irregarding" or "irregardful" (which of course aren't words), but since the suffix "-less" is attached, then "ir-" becomes unnecessary, because they do the same thing -- which is negate the root word "regard."

And depending on how it is used, "regardless" is either an adverb ("..., regardless.") or a preposition ("regardless of ...").

Answer 6

short answer, yes. opposite of regardless is regarding. a word similar in meaning to regardless is irrespective (opposite is respective, or respecting). people confuse the two and "transplant" the "ir" from irrespective to regardless

Answer 7

Irregardless isn't even a word. Yes, it is an oxymoron. It is incorrect.

Answer 8

ai_nacco_2000 is correct but he/she left out that when used on purpose, it can be used for a comic effect or a nod to those in the know. Or possibly an indication of an irresposible speech writer.

Answer 9

The proper term is regardless. They are misusing the prefix, and they are getting it mixed up with "irrespective".

Answer 10

Nah, it isn't even a word.

Unregardless, it's quite common among intelligentsia wanna-be's.