Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2(pesnta.1.2) 9/5/84; site scc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!crsp!pesnta!scc!steiny
From: steiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Semantic Reversals (irregardless)
Message-ID: <446@scc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Feb-85 10:58:30 EST
Article-I.D.: scc.446
Posted: Thu Feb 28 10:58:30 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 20:24:40 EST
References: <108@ISM780.UUCP> <947@dual.UUCP>
Organization: Personetics, Inc. - Santa Cruz, Calif.
Lines: 30

>
> => ...And, of course, let us not forget that new favorite
> => 	irregardless
> => --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Inc. ..!cca!ima!ism780!darryl
> 
> Except that it isn't a real word in any real dictionary extant, so it doesn't
> count . . . flame me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Helen Anne
	
	No need to flame.  It is a common misconception that
there is a pool of words that are "English words" and that
that pool is static.  My mother used to say "ain't ain't in
the dictionary (she was wrong too). 

	Anyway, p. 692 of the American Heritage Dictionary
has:
	
	irregardless - adv. *Nonstandard*. Regardless.

My theory about why people use it is a linguistic process
called "analogy."  People do it by analogy with "irrespective,"
which also means "regardless."


-- 
scc!steiny
Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382    ihnp4!pesnta   -\
109 Torrey Pine Terr.                        ucbvax!twg     --> scc!steiny
Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060                     fortune!idsvax -/