Please stop the use of the following immediately:
Irregardless when you intend irrespective
Mute when you intend moot.
And if you use both in one (1) sentence, I wish you a quick, yet painful death.
Yes on the mute vs. moot idea, however regardless/irregardless vs. irrespective are a tad more difficult to distinguish between since they rely on the subjective P.O.V of one’s culture, environment, personal feelings, etc. I think this article muses well on the subject, if anyone’s interested in that sort of thing. (Which I am, so deal with me loving language enough to share these thoughts on it. ‘Tis an enjoyable pastime. For me.)
“When we return to regardless v. irrespective, however, these words are generally used on a meta-level to regard v. respect, as in the fact or quality of what should be regarded or respected. Regardless of the fact that it was physics exam, the student answered the essay questions with dissertations on economic philosophy. True story. Irrespective of his desire to maintain his 4.0 GPA in economics, he submitted the essay for the physic professor to grade. Regardless has the idea of ignoring something to which you should have paid attention, while irrespective is dismissing something to which you had no need to pay attention. Regardless of the weather, my friend and I go walking every morning (almost true, but not due to the weather). Irrespective of his 7 y.o. daughter’s whining, he goes to work every day. Ok, that might be a little harsh. Depending on the parent, it could just as easily have read, regardless of his 7 y.o. daughter’s whining, he goes to work every day. So, depending on the person and the societal norms of what we should “regard”, and even just cautious politeness, regardless has a broader usage. Irrespective, then, is almost flippant, as well, the lawyer in me prefers “notwithstanding” as a more generic, and perhaps obscure substitute. Irrespective of the judge’s counseling, Plaintiff’s counsel proceeded to attack the witness’s credibility on his extra-marital affair. Only Plaintiff’s counsel would actually presume to defy a judge so blatantly. For the rest, it would be regardless of the judge’s counseling, the attorney continued to zealously represent her client by cross-examining the witness on his extra-marital affair to attack his loss of consortium damages." - Lauren from The Common Parlance Blogspot