“Whether or not the property belonged to Mr. Simpson or not is still in debate. Having said that, the manner in which this property was taken, we have a responsibility to look into that, irregardless of who the property belonged to.” ~ Lt. Clint Nichols
Yahoo News published the above quote by Lt. Clint Nichols. I’m not sure if it’s more annoying that Lt. Clint Nichols said “irregardless” or that a news agency that I check regularly published it without a [sic].
Now, I’m not particularly persnickety about word usage. I don’t mind most slang. In fact, I like the evolution of language. But I have a problem with words that came about from the speaker’s attempt to “sound smart.” Naturally, the opposite effect is achieved. And really, a police lieutenant doesn’t know that the word he wants is “regardless?” Arg!
Tarting up words is a ridiculous way to try to seem smart and it’s painful for the listener. Especially the polite listener who can’t say, “you idiot, that’s not a word!” Now that I really think about it, I probably shouldn’t hold my tongue. I suspect people who use “irregardless” don’t know it’s not a word. I’m not doing them any favors by cringing inwardly.
I suppose irregardless is a word now. But it’s a joke. It reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote, “This is like deja vu all over again.” Lately I’ve been noticing that this phrase, said without irony, has come into popular use. I’m just guessing that the people who can’t say deja vu without tagging with “all over again” don’t even know who Yogi Berra is.
I don’t really blame the speakers. As G.W. Bush said, “You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.” And with a message like that, is it any wonder that we’ve gone so wrong? Maybe I’m just misunderestimating people. I guess that’s the chance you take when you judge a speaker by his words.









