Accept unusual words, irregardless: If they are understood, their inclusion in dictionaries should be irrelentless

When an unlikely English word pops into public discourse nowadays, the US president is the usual suspect — remember misunderestimate and covfefe — regardless of his actual culpability. Or is it irregardless? An exceptionable exception is the current debate over the word ‘irregardless’ gaining — or regaining — legitimacy by being recently included in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. That there is no White House angle to this is undoubtless: other dictionaries have included it already. Only pedants still aver that as the prefix ‘ir’ means ‘not’ and the suffix ‘less’ means ‘without’, the resultant double negative renders the word useless, irregardless of its lexicographical legitimacy. As it is meant to be a portmanteau word combining irrespective and regardless, the prefix-suffix combination is presumably intended to intensify and emphasise its unaffectedness.

That irregardless surfaced in the US a little over a century ago is unsurprising, as that country is a melting pot of languages, and adjectival double negatives are not uncommon in German. Many similarly obscure and seemingly illogical words have been inducted into dictionaries already and it must be emphasised that the situation is irremediless and such inclusions will be irrelentless. So, although irritation may be warranted, such double negatives will continue irregardless.