Is it grammatically correct to use the word ilk as in, for example, this sentence:

Ilk regardless, whether of noblemen or blackguards, no man has ever. . . .

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ilk as kind or class of people, but the Google definition states ilk as an aforementioned group, that is, it has already been referred to. Is it ok to use the word ilk if the kind has not been mentioned yet?


It seems that the word ilk is most commonly used as illustrated here :

In modern use, ilk is used in phrases such as of his ilk, of that ilk, to mean ‘type’ or ‘sort.’


The use arose out of a misunderstanding of the earlier, Scottish use in the phrase of that ilk, where it means ‘of the same name or place.’ For this reason, some traditionalists regard the modern use as incorrect. It is, however, the only common current use and is now part of standard English.

I have also found other example sentences here :

I suspect my old school chums, those who were of the right ilk, went down this path and have continued.

The drive to increase access to universities fits in with New Labour pronouncements on social inclusion and the ilk.

But so it was until it was won by vibrant and brave men of the ilk of Sir George.

I conclude that you could use the word ilk even though the "kind" has not already been mentioned. Though I believe that "Regardless of the ilk..." would be more appropriate.



Regardless of ilk, whether of noblemen or blackguards, no man has ever...

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.