A Word, Please: Regardless of whether you like ‘irregardless’ — it’s a real word

I have a friend who uses the word “irregardless.” I hold my tongue. Sometimes I think it would be in her best interest to know she’s using a word that is universally despised. But, as I’ve learned the hard way, people don’t appreciate having their language nitpicked — even if the criticism is dressed up as constructive.

“Irregardless” is one of those words that strikes us as just wrong. But the twist is: It’s not. It’s a real word, listed right in the dictionary. It means “regardless.” So we can hate it because it’s unnecessary. We can hate it because it’s likely some users are conflating “regardless” with “irrespective.” But we can’t say it’s not legitimate.

Quite a few words work like this. We hate them. We’re right to hate them. But we can’t condemn them, because they’re not wrong. Here are some more to loathe and let live.

Impactful. I’ve been criticized for using this word. Until that moment, I thought “impactful” was great, especially when writing about writing. What better way to say a sentence hit home than to call it “impactful”? But that one brief, fleeting criticism spoiled the word for me. I now cringe when I hear it, even though it’s perfectly correct.

Enormity. This word sounds like it’s closely related to “enormous,” so people use it to refer to size. Logophiles know that’s not the primary meaning. In its primary form, “enormity” means “great wickedness.” To anyone privy to that fact, “enormity” is about as elegant as “huge-ity” or “biggity” — pure silliness. But in fact, one of its definitions is “the quality or state of being huge.”

Spectate. Yuck, right? Here’s a real-world example of “spectate” originally from NBC News cited in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary: “Clark and Daly met outside Joe’s Pizza, both unable to spectate from the sidelines.” If this sounds to you like a word that people with bad taste willed into existence only recently, you’re right. It is a newish word. But it’s real nonetheless.

Enthuse. I consider this word an occupational hazard. Writers I edit try to find alternatives to “said” when they’re attributing quotations, and this is one of their creative solutions: “This pizza is great,” she enthused. I replace it with “said” every time, and I have an excuse. Traditional journalism doesn’t get fancy with speech tags. The words should never upstage the information. So … chop, chop. But I can’t tell the writers they’re wrong, because “enthuse” is, in fact, a verb.

Burglarize. If “burgle,” is a verb (and it is), and “burglar” is one who burgles, then surely “burglarize” is both unnecessary and wrong — like saying that dancers “dancerize” or that sculptors “sculptorize.” It’s a good bet that this process explains the origins of the word “burglarize.” But regardless of whether you could call its birth a mistake, it’s a real word now.

Incentivize. Speaking of words that use “ize” to make verbs where they perhaps should not, “incentivize” rankles language lovers far and wide. It sounds slapped together by people who were more interested in sounding business-fancy than speaking well, and in fact it was slapped together kind of recently. But we’re stuck with it. “Incentivize” is officially OK now.

Conversate. If you can’t believe I’m about to defend this abomination, well, neither can I. “Conversate” is awful. Surprisingly, though, it has its fans, like a listener to a 2023 episode of the “A Way with Words” radio show. But if you want to hate it, know that plain-language media like journalism hate it, too. There aren’t a lot of editors in the English-speaking world who wouldn’t change “conversate” into plain-old “talk,” “chat” or “discuss.”

— June Casagrande is the author of “The Best Punctuation Book, Period.” She can be reached at JuneTCN@aol.com.