In the Usage section of all four Webster's dictionaries we consulted for the period from 1979 to 1994, the word "irregardless" (first noted circa 1912) is highlighted as an example of "nonstandard" English. In the dictionary proper, the 1979, 1981, and 1991 volumes simply label the word nonstandard and offer a one-word definition: "REGARDLESS." The 1994 Webster's follows suit on the label and definition but adds the following squib: "'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."

Of course "irregardless" is a word. So is "pyrzqxgl" (coined in 1919 by L. Frank Baum and familiar to tens of thousands of people--at least briefly during their childhood). But unlike "pyrzqxgl," "irregardless" suffers from supersaturation with components signifying negation: The "ir-" prefix indicates "not" and the "-less" suffix indicates "destitute of." Thus, logically, "irregardless" falls into the same category of multinegative words as "irreligionless" and "unambitionless"--words whose components are coherent and unassailable but run at cross purposes. We are not unmindful (though by no means not unmindless) that constructions involving the negation of a negative are not unacceptable in English, but it is perhaps not inapposite to point out that the stacked negatives produce unmeaningless results only if we allow all elements in the compounded expression to participate in the anti-unmaking of its sense. Regrettably, Webster's Tenth chooses to be irregardful of the logic issue.