Irregardless

The most frequent statement about the word “irregardless” is that it is not a word. But recently a friend’s daughter had the embarrassing experience of making this statement and being proved wrong, none too politely, by another youthful dictionary wielder.

Yes, the word irregardless is in the dictionary. But then, so is “ain’t.” And so is “leastways.” And so is “nother” as in “a whole nother story.”

What gives? Are they just letting any old thing into the dictionary these days? The truth is, if people use an expression enough in both spoken and written form, it will eventually turn up in Webster’s—even if it is considered wrong.

How, then, are we supposed to know whether it is ok to use these words in our business documents and publications? The answer is in the usage labels and usage notes that accompany problematic words in the dictionary.

“Irregardless” bears the usage label “nonstand” in Webster’s. This italicized label means that this word is not considered a part of standard English. Both the dictionary and two “usage guides” I consulted simply stated that “regardless” should be used instead. Microsoft Word put in its two cents by marking the word with red underlining as I typed it and offering “regardless” as the correct spelling.

The upshot? Read the label. Many words in the dictionary are labeled as slang, obs (obsolete), dial (dialect), chiefly Southwest, or Austral or Canad or Brit (meaning mostly used in those countries or regions), or even as usually vulgar or obscene. If a word has one of these labels, do not use it in your professional writing.

“Ain’t”? Considered nonstandard except in popular expressions such as “Say it ain’t so.” “Leastways”? Labeled as dialect. “Nother”? Used chiefly in speech or informal prose. And “irregardless”? Yes, it is a word, but it is a word with a bad reputation. Don’t use it.

Don’t have time to look it up or don’t always have a three-pound, hard-cover dictionary in your hip pocket? On the internet you can check Merriam-Webster Online at m-w.com

Which vs. that

“Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.”
—Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) from the 1942 movie, Casablanca

When Rick says this line in Casablanca, he is narrowing down, or restricting, his discussion from many possible gin joints down to the one he owns. In other words, of all the gin joints it could have been, she walked into that particular one. This concept of mentioning an item of which there are many, then adding more information
to narrow it down to the specific one you mean, is called “restricting the discussion.” From this concept comes the grammatical word for this: restrictive.
Why do we need to understand the concept of “restrictive”? Because it helps us know when to use “which” and when to use “that” when we are adding additional description to a sentence.

The words "that" and "which" are both used to add further description after a noun in a sentence. The word "that" is used when the additional information is needed in order to restrict the discussion down to the exact noun that is meant. "Which" is used to add extra information that is not really needed in order to identify the exact noun.

Let’s look at a specific example.

A. “The river is very muddy today.”
B. “The river that flows from Minnesota to Louisiana is very muddy today.”

As a reader of sentence A, you are probably wondering, “what river?” The noun “river” could mean any river in the world. You need more information to help you identify exactly what river I am talking about. When I add “that flows from Minnesota to Louisiana” in sentence B, you probably now realize exactly what river I mean: the Mississippi. The clause “that flows from Minnesota to Louisiana” narrows my discussion down, or restricts it, from all the possible rivers in all the world to the one I am talking about: the Mississippi. The word that is used to begin what is called a restrictive clause.

Here are two different examples:

C. The Atlantic Ocean separates England from the United States.
D. The Atlantic Ocean, which is sometimes called The Big Pond, separates England from the United States.

The word "which" adds information that is not needed to restrict the discussion. When I start sentence C with “The Atlantic Ocean,” I have already specified the exact ocean. You do not need any more information to help you identify exactly which gin joint—I mean ocean—I am referring to. In other words, no further restriction is needed to make my meaning clear. But I just felt like adding further description or information, so I added “which is sometimes called The Big Pond” in sentence D. I put this additional information inside two commas to indicate that it is not really necessary.

You can think of the two commas around a nonrestrictive clause as miniature parentheses, indicating that the clause is merely parenthetical. You could take out the part of the sentence between the commas, and the reader would still understand the sentence and not be left wondering what you were talking about.

Use this little chart as a reminder:

That is restrictive (and essential)and has no commas.
Which is nonrestrictive (and nonessential) and has commas.

Can you start a sentence with because?

A frequently asked question from my grammar classes is this one: Can you start a sentence with because? The short answer is, yes, if you make sure it is in fact a complete sentence. The longer answer is not an answer, but a question: where did you get the idea that you could not?

First, the short answer. You can start a sentence with because, as long as you make sure to fully complete the sentence. One clause beginning with the word because does not constitute a sentence. These are fragments:

*Because the newspapers reported it.*

*Because the river ran dry.*

If you follow the clause beginning with because with a complete independent clause, however, you are in business. These are complete sentences:

Because the newspapers reported it, the neighbors believed it.

Because the river ran dry, the dam would no longer provide electricity.

Now, the long answer. My theory as to why so many people think you cannot start a sentence with because is that school teachers use this “rule” to help students avoid writing fragments like the ones in asterisks above. You may find this rule useful yourself if you are prone to this error. Thus, if you do not allow yourself to start a sentence with because, you will automatically correct fragments beginning with because.

You might correct this fragment:

*Because I said so.*

By creating this complete sentence:

The children stayed inside this afternoon because I said so.

You may also correct fragments like the ones in asterisks above by rewriting so that because is not at the beginning:

The neighbors believed the story because the newspaper reported it.

The dam would no longer provide electricity because the river ran dry.

*Asterisks indicate a grammatically incorrect sentence.