From your link: "The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English."
But is still in the dictionary and defined. And fits the definition of a word as defined here http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wordFrom your link: "The word dates back to the 19th century, but is regarded as incorrect in standard English."
So proper English? No but still a word.
Don't BS anyone with silly ass dictionary stuff.
They will let anything in those now.
The fact that it's in use doesn't mean it's proper or right.
Don't forget to plug in your "hot water heater."
Think about it.
And really think about what "irregardless" means. It is a self-contained double negative.
There is no proper way to use the word.
There acceptable application of "irregardless." Irrespective of what any of those dictionary dildos might think.
The word is an albatross. The word is a black swan.
Want another?
How about "which?"
There is no way to use "which" in our language when it is not extraneous and redundant.
But even so, it is nowhere on the level of "irregardless."
There acceptable application of "irregardless." Irrespective of what any of those dictionary dildos might think.
The word is an albatross. The word is a black swan.
Want another?
How about "which?"
There is no way to use "which" in our language when it is not extraneous and redundant.
But even so, it is nowhere on the level of "irregardless."
If it was not for the title, with all the whining and different opinions..About something totally unrelated to the thread..I would be lost as to the original topic of discussion..And if I am not grammatically correct...I don't give a shit!! You understand what I am saying..I feel better now, Carry On!!
Then you should have used "their" and not "there" when referring to the dictionary dildos.
Damn I just wish the BATF would get back to Approving form 4's and 1's and quit messing with other things.