There's a lot of folks hating on "irregardless," but people should probably remember that English as a language only really exists because people were taking words like "regardless" and "irrespective" and mashing them together into nonsense words that sounded right, and wound up being widely used, back around the 1400's (I think).

Language, pretty much all languages that have new learners of the language at least, is a fluid thing. Simply through slang and colloquialisms, the English we all know and have grown up speaking will have changed by the end of our lifetimes, in much the same way that we look at how dated English sounds from the 50's and before then (AND, how we can look at phrases used in the 60's, 70's and 80's and know approximately what era the slang came from, even if we weren't alive in that time). This is language growing/changing.

One interesting point is that the fewer new learners of a language, specifically people learning a language after already having been fluent in another, the more stable and "pure" the language will be. So if English was like Navajo, and very few people spoke it with even fewer learning the language after having been brought up speaking another, it would be largely unchanged and very similar to its original forms.

Johnathan McHorter has written a few books on the subject.

Our word, "daughter" is just an appropriation of the word "Dottir," which originated in a bunch of Scandinavian languages, meanwhile we were also dipping our toes into Celtic, and some of the Latin-based languages, though because those languages were often used under diplomatic circumstances, we come to associate Latin-based words in English with diplomacy, politics, aristocracy, and science (basically, poor English-speakers never spoke those languages when they were incorporated into English).

All I'm sayin' is if we accept that "twerk" isn't just a word but a fucking verb, then "irregardless" has every right to be a word itself.

I draw the line at "nucular," though.