Asakiyume mita

Saw a thing on FB and decided not to engage because it wasn't from anyone I knew and no one was begging for my input. Instead I'll inflict the information on my readers here--who also didn't ask for it, heh.

The FB post was about a news story yesterday that "Merriam-Webster has declared 'irregardless' a word!!" The news story was full of pearl-clutching and oaths sworn to continue to teach children not to use that word, no matter what MW says, and the commenters on the FB post were shaking their heads over standards, etc. etc.

Once upon a time I worked at Merriam-Webster, so I know a thing or two about it. What its dictionaries aim to do is **record the language as it exists in print**. MW dictionaries--and all modern dictionaries I know of --are descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, they're not trying to act as style manuals. (There is no shortage of style and grammar manuals, if what you want are rules on how to speak or write the language.)

At Merriam-Webster, lexicographers note how words are used in print--they literally spend time doing a thing called "reading and marking," where they read through magazines, books, and newspapers (or they did, back when I worked there)--and if a word reaches a threshold presence, it goes in the dictionary. "Irregardless" has been in Merriam-Webster for at least 20 years, because it was there when I worked there.

MW does have ways of warning dictionary users about words, though. The first are labels like "archaic," "slang," or "offensive." There are also usage notes and usage paragraphs, which will warn you about words. In my 2003 physical copy of the MW Collegiate Dictionary, the note for "irregardless" says,

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

I don't think you can have any doubts about the word's standing if you read that. The dictionary up and tells you not to use it. The news story was obviously an attempt to provide a new, inconsequential thing to spend some outrage on, but honestly, there's nothing to see here, people. Move along.