A new “disaster” in the Middle East may further jeopardize Republicans’ electoral prospects in November, with the GOP already facing an uphill battle amid soaring prices, two analysts warned on Saturday.According to BBC, the Yemeni militant group known as the Houthis claimed to have carried out miss...
Technically, no. But in practice yes. Unless you’re going to start in on ruining the word “technically” as well.
The major dictionaries all agree it is in fact a word. Just not the ideal choice.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/irregardless
https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?q=irregardless&tl=true
how I always took was that it’s like saying regardless and/or irregardless (regardless or not) with only one extra syllable instead of all 3, to be used as a changing-of-topics transition phrase.
But I remember a few times when some people would use the “longer version” at times when it seemed like they really only needed/meant to be using the word regardless.
FMP those people just liked saying the slightly longer word slightly more because it made them look/sound smarter.
I don’t know if I hallucinated that whole definition part into existence though because my sample size for this type of memory of conversations is limited in both total frequency and relative importance in moments when people have ever been using the word regardless, vs irregardlesses, around me
Look, it’s only 7:30 and I’m just finishing my first cup of coffee, but this is hurting my brain. I understand what you’re saying, I’m just trying to make it make sense in any context and can’t do it.
Little do they know. Literally and figuratively.
Still not as bad as using “whom” wrong.