# Dilemma: Use of 'alright' vs 'all right'



## Dragonfly Editing (Janet) (May 29, 2012)

Many many authors are using 'alright' instead of 'all right' recently. According to the Chicago Manual of Style, 'alright' should never be used. In order to get a well rounded idea of what is acceptable I have searched and searched...and come up with everything from "it's not grammatically correct to use 'alright'" to "it seems to be the modern style to use the one word version" to "try to avoid using either of the styles if at all possible" and finally, "Alright is nonstandard...but is becoming more acceptable". 

Most of what I see is the one word version, which I change to the two word version. I'm wondering what the authors have to say about the subject.


----------



## MegSilver (Feb 26, 2012)

"all ready" is not the same thing as "already"


----------



## Lexi Revellian (May 31, 2010)

'All right' will offend no one. 'Alright' will offend some readers.

Lexi


----------



## Dragonfly Editing (Janet) (May 29, 2012)

MegSilver said:


> "all ready" is not the same thing as "already"


x

Agreed, and in some instances of my searching I've found that people are saying that there is a difference in meaning between 'alright' and 'all right'. However most authoritative sources say that 'alright' is not even a word, hence the dilemma: do we go popular, or do we stick with the rules?


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

OK or okay? While I use "okay," I rarely use "alright" or "all right" as it is an empty modifier, but it's "okay" to use it between the quotes as a character preference. I favor other empty modifiers, probablematic in their use as opposed to their spelling, such as "well" and "quite."

Ed Patterson


----------



## CarlG (Sep 16, 2012)

I write okay and all right.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Dragonfly Editing (Janet) said:


> x
> 
> Agreed, and in some instances of my searching I've found that people are saying that there is a difference in meaning between 'alright' and 'all right'. However most authoritative sources say that 'alright' is not even a word, hence the dilemma: do we go popular, or do we stick with the rules?


As long as we don't use "all write."  But then we would no longer have a "dilemma," but a "quandary."    (three smiles for the third choice).

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Dragonfly Editing (Janet) (May 29, 2012)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> As long as we don't use "all write."  But then we would no longer have a "dilemma," but a "quandary."    (three smiles for the third choice).
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


I could go for the quandary! (I like 3 smiles!)


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

I would use 'all right' never 'alright' - even typing it out here feels weird  If I see 'alright' in a book it takes me out of the story and that is never a good thing for a reader.


----------



## B.A. Spangler (Jan 25, 2012)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> As long as we don't use "all write."  But then we would no longer have a "dilemma," but a "quandary."    (three smiles for the third choice).
> 
> Edward C. Patterson


Good One


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

I don't agree. 

The man stood in front of the class and said, "You're all right."

What did the man mean? Did he mean they all answered the question correctly, or did he mean they were fine to continue as they were? I only use "all right" when I'm saying "all correct" or "all right as opposed to left". I don't care what the Chicago Manual of Style says. IMO it's a matter of clarity.


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

A'ight. lol Are we talking about dialogue? In dialogue, I think it's better to use alright. All right just reads wrong. But dialogue in a different monster in itself. After all, you can do all kinds of cool things you can't do in the rest of the prose. I like using "kinda" instead of "kind of" because that's how most people speak.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

Either is fine for me as long as the usage is consistent. I tend to go with "alright", as it's a lot more compact and concise.

I've never been one to stick to grammatical conventions if there's a clearer way of articulating your meaning. There's really no such thing as "right" or "wrong" grammar, even if there are books that makes claims to the contrary. It's all about translating an idea from your head to the reader's head by the most effective means, and "alright" seems to be pretty effective in this day and age.


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

Danielle Kazemi said:


> A'ight. lol Are we talking about dialogue? In dialogue, I think it's better to use alright. All right just reads wrong. But dialogue in a different monster in itself. After all, you can do all kinds of cool things you can't do in the rest of the prose. I like using "kinda" instead of "kind of" because that's how most people speak.


That's what I was thinking as well.


----------



## Incognita (Apr 3, 2011)

Professional editor here: I always use "all right." Until the CMoS tells me it's all right to use "alright," I just won't. It looks wrong. It feels wrong. 

I actually kind of hate it.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I rarely use all right. Like a lot of vague modifiers it's not terrifically useful, but when I use it I use the real word and not a misspelling.

I'm afraid seeing "alright" in a novel simply makes me think that the writer doesn't know any better. It jerks me right out of the story and makes me look at the author (in a negative light) rather than whatever it was the author was trying to convey.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Lexi Revellian said:


> 'All right' will offend no one. 'Alright' will offend some readers.
> 
> Lexi


Yup. I used "alright" 'cause I figured the boat on that one had sailed, but a reader wrote to me mentioning it. Now I'm "all right" throughout.


----------



## Dragonfly Editing (Janet) (May 29, 2012)

I'm afraid seeing "alright" in a novel simply makes me think that the writer doesn't know any better. It jerks me right out of the story and makes me look at the author (in a negative light) rather than whatever it was the author was trying to convey.
[/quote]

This is what I think, also. My eye always stops at 'alright' and I'm out of the story.


----------



## MalloryMoutinho (Aug 24, 2012)

I use "alright" in dialogue. Taking from an example from above:

Susie rushed over to where little Johnny had fallen down the stairs, "Are you okay?"

"Yeah, I'm alright."

But, as always, dialogue is a strange beast.


----------



## 48209 (Jul 4, 2011)

Alright... oops, I mean, All right. I just did a find/replace and had three inside dialogue. I changed them, but I have to say, it does look a little weird to me inside dialogue as two words. But, Christine has edit-scared me


----------



## Janet Michelson (Jun 20, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> I don't agree.
> 
> The man stood in front of the class and said, "You're all right."
> 
> What did the man mean? Did he mean they all answered the question correctly, or did he mean they were fine to continue as they were? I only use "all right" when I'm saying "all correct" or "all right as opposed to left". I don't care what the Chicago Manual of Style says. IMO it's a matter of clarity.


This is a great example of a gray area in writing and editing. These types of decisions have to be made according to the context of that particular setting. These problems are a great frustration to writers because there is no simple answer. The editor may have to clarify the meaning with the writer in order to make the best decision.

In my editing I change ok to okay and alright to all right.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

It yanks me out of the story, too. My nose turns up and I mutter "Philistine!" under my breath whenever I see it.

But I'm sure that "alright" is on the road to acceptance and will make it before I die. It's in the dictionary, you can play it in Scrabble, so there you are.

I might use it in dialogue, if I believe that the character speaking it would spell it that way. Otherwise I avoid it.


----------



## Caddy (Sep 13, 2011)

Kind of like "eying" or "eyeing".  Both are now considered right most places...but eying is always considered right. It looks wrong to some, though.  In other words, they don't like it is alright OR all right!


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Claudia King said:


> I've never been one to stick to grammatical conventions if there's a clearer way of articulating your meaning.


I agree 100%. And I'm getting the impression the rest of you are jerked out of stories an awful lot.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> I agree 100%. And I'm getting the impression the rest of you are jerked out of stories an awful lot.


If the author uses "alright" a lot, then probably. It is such a weak modifier, I might also question why someone is using it an awful lot though. I also question in what way "alright" somehow magically is "a clearer way of articulating your meaning." Funny how often I see nonstandard usages defended as "but you're stifle my wonderful and great creativity." It is seldom a particularly convincing argument since more often than not it is merely an excuse for lazy writing and editing.

Now if you tell me that the best way to articulate your meaning is to say: _The sea, the snotgreen sea, the scrotumtightening sea_ I'll say, whoa. Yeah, that is nonstandard but it conveys a fantastic meaning (although I might hint that plagiarism is a bad idea  ). However, if you tell me that spelling all right as alright conveys your meaning better, I'll probably just snort and say "sure it does, and continue to delude yourself".

ETA: It might have a use in dialogue though where people often use nonstandard English. Dialogue, as someone mentioned, is a different beast. I still avoid it, but I can see an argument for it if the character would probably spell it that way.


----------



## Dan Harris (May 18, 2012)

All right. All ways


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> I also question in what way "alright" somehow magically is "a clearer way of articulating your meaning."


Your responses were alright.
Your responses were all right.

Tell me what is meant by the first sentence, and then tell me what is meant by the second.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Your responses were alright.
> Your responses were all right.
> 
> Tell me what is meant by the first sentence, and then tell me what is meant by the second.


Give me the context. Or don't your stories have context? The meaning of plenty of sentences is unclear out of context. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.

"Alright, I'll go" is clearer than "All right, I'll go"? No.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Give me the context. Or don't your stories have context? The meaning of plenty of sentences is unclear out of context. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.


Actually, what's intellectually dishonest is you pretending you can't think of a context where those two statements would mean different things to the readers.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Caddy said:


> Kind of like "eying" or "eyeing". Both are now considered right most places...but eying is always considered right. It looks wrong to some, though. In other words, they don't like it is alright OR all right!


'eyeing,' to me, looks much better than 'eying.'


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Give me the context. Or don't your stories have context? The meaning of plenty of sentences is unclear out of context. That is an intellectually dishonest argument.
> 
> "Alright, I'll go" is clearer than "All right, I'll go"? No.


Professor Peabody entered the class and put the stack of papers down on his desk.

Buffy Broadchest raised her delicate hand. "How'd we do professor?"

Peabody scratched his ass like he always did and smiled. "Your responses were all right."

Buffy raised a brow. "Does that mean we get to go on the field trip to the brothel?"

"The rules say the class with the best scores goes to the brothel."

"How did we do?"

He shrugged. "Like I said, your responses we all right."

"What does that mean, professor? Were they alright, or were they all right?"


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Professor Peabody entered the class and put the stack of papers down on his desk.
> 
> Buffy Broadchest raised her delicate hand. "How'd we do professor?"
> 
> ...


And the professor responds, "Since you don't know the correct spelling, you failed."

ETA: And if you are trying to convey that all the students got all the responses correct, you chose a rather poor way of doing it. I'd suggest a re-write rather than using a nonstandard usage. 

If only the best paper gets to go to the brothel, what difference does it make if some did "all right" but weren't the best? You are still lacking in a context that makes sense because you are merely trying to prove a point, not provide a real context. If I found the meaning ambiguous, I"d simply reword. That's a pretty simple solution for ambiguous meanings that most of have used at one time or another.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

swolf said:


> 'eyeing,' to me, looks much better than 'eying.'


I must admit that 'eying' just looks odd to me, but I never find myself using the word so it's not a big issue. Then again, I don't use all right much either.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> And the professor responds, "Since you don't know the correct spelling, you failed."


 

It's still in the dictionary. I refuse to eliminate any word from usage that's still in there.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

JRTomlin said:


> And the professor responds, "Since you don't know the correct spelling, you failed."


WHATEVER PROFESSOR, YOU'RE NOT MY DAD I CAN DO WHAT I WANT

And then the class organised their own field trip to the brothel and led the revolution.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Claudia King said:


> WHATEVER PROFESSOR, YOU'RE NOT MY DAD I CAN DO WHAT I WANT
> 
> And then the class organised their own field trip to the brothel and led the revolution.


And like any real professor, he said, "No, thank God. I don't have to support you but I can flunk you." 



vrabinec said:


> It's still in the dictionary. I refuse to eliminate any word from usage that's still in there.


Lots of nonstandard usages are in the dictionary. That doesn't mean I think I should normally use them rather than the standard usage. There can be exceptions if the nonstandard really DOES serve a purpose.

Not when it means I'm just too lazy to learn correct English or edit properly.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

The confusion is a syntactical one, not a choice between words. Dictionaries say that "all right" is an adjective and adverb and that "alright" is a less acceptable variant or they say nothing at all about it. But "alright" is an expletive, which has a syntactical function different from "all right." For example, in the sentence

"I'll send you the money alright!"

Alright is an expletive, not an adverb modifying "send." In other words, it doesn't tell you how the speaker will send the money. It operates in the same way that f---ing does in this similar sentence:

"I'll send you the f---ing money!"

The CMS speaks to formal writing, so the convention against "alright" applies to narrative. But "alright" is right word in dialogue when the expletive is meant-though only when it is.



Claudia King said:


> I've never been one to stick to grammatical conventions if there's a clearer way of articulating your meaning. There's really no such thing as "right" or "wrong" grammar, even if there are books that makes claims to the contrary. It's all about translating an idea from your head to the reader's head by the most effective means...


That claim is self-refuting. If you can't articulate your meaning grammatically, you can't articulate your meaning at all. Do explain, after all, how you propose to get an idea in your head into the reader's head without using the common language as a medium? Telepathy?


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

To be honest, every argument posted makes sense. I'm rapidly learning that no matter what you do, someone is going to disagree and think you made an error. I've had emails pointing out what someone perceived as an error even though it was in line with every style manual I could find, but was not the way most people these days would write it.

I don't care about sticking exactly to the rules. I do care about knowing the rules, for if I'm going to break them, I want to be aware of it and have a logical reason to go against the norm. After all, it is about 'style' as much as it is grammar. More importantly, it's about entertainment and making the customer happy that they purchased and read your work.

As a reader, I'm fine with either form. As I writer, I use "all right" as I can't really justify the use of "alright" at this point. (Although I admit that it sometimes looks strange to me on the page.)

In the end, consistency is far more important to me than the strict adherence to the rules. The occasional grammar-obsessive reader that might be turned off doesn't concern me.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> The confusion is a syntactical one, not a choice between words. Dictionaries say that "all right" is an adjective and adverb and that "alright" is a less acceptable variant or they say nothing at all about it. But "alright" is an expletive, which has a syntactical function different from "all right." For example, in the sentence
> 
> "I'll send you the money alright!"
> 
> ...


Much as it pains me to agree with you, you're right about using it as an expletive in dialog.


----------



## MalloryMoutinho (Aug 24, 2012)




----------



## Dragonfly Editing (Janet) (May 29, 2012)

This has been an enlightening discussion for me. I thank you all.



Rykymus said:


> To be honest, every argument posted makes sense. I'm rapidly learning that no matter what you do, someone is going to disagree and think you made an error. I've had emails pointing out what someone perceived as an error even though it was in line with every style manual I could find, but was not the way most people these days would write it.


I have to agree. I will keep changing it to the standard usage as that is the style I follow and the usage I learned as a child. It is totally up to the author to accept or reject my changes, according to _their_ style.

You are all the best!!


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

The problem here, is that just like 'all ready' and 'already' don't mean the same thing, and 'all together' and 'altogether' don't mean the same thing, 'all right' and 'alright' don't mean the same thing either.

'Alright' may be non-standard, but its meaning is crystal clear to readers, and clarity, in my opinion, is one of the primary goals of writing.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

swolf said:


> The problem here, is that just like 'all ready' and 'already' don't mean the same thing, and 'all together' and 'altogether' don't mean the same thing, 'all right' and 'alright' don't mean the same thing either.
> 
> 'Alright' may be non-standard, but its meaning is crystal clear to readers, and clarity, in my opinion, is one of the primary goals of writing.


'I ain't going' is also crystal clear in meaning to readers. That doesn't mean I am going to start using it as my preferred usage.


----------



## D/W (Dec 29, 2010)

In school, I was taught to use the word _alright_ (within the proper context), but over the last few years I've retrained myself to use _all right_ since that seems to be more commonly accepted.

From _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,_ Eleventh Edition (2004):



> The one-word spelling _alright_ appeared some 75 years after _all right_ itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted _alright_ is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than _all right_ but remains in common use esp. in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occas. in other writing < the first two years of medical school were _alright_ -Gertrude Stein >


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> 'I ain't going' is also crystal clear in meaning to readers. That doesn't mean I am going to start using it as my preferred usage.


Really? You've never had a character who would say something like that?


----------



## ElisaBlaisdell (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm coming late to the party...

My first reaction was that "all right" was two words, and that "alright" wasn't a word at all. And, as almost everyone else has said, anything goes in dialogue, if it's something that the character would say.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> ETA: And if you are trying to convey that all the students got all the responses correct, you chose a rather poor way of doing it. I'd suggest a re-write rather than using a nonstandard usage.


Agreed. Anyway, I searched my WIP and found one use of "all right", and that was when a character asked if another character was injured as in "Are you all right?" and I had one use of "alright" and then was when a character said "Alright, come on." So i'm not being consistent. Oh well. That's why I'll have to get myself an editor and let her/him worry about it.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

WHDean said:


> That claim is self-refuting. If you can't articulate your meaning grammatically, you can't articulate your meaning at all. Do explain, after all, how you propose to get an idea in your head into the reader's head without using the common language as a medium? Telepathy?


You can articulate your meaning without using proper grammar. It's actually quite simple and it's done every day. Look on any internet forum (other than one full of anal retentive writers) and you'll see how it's done.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

swolf said:


> 'Alright' may be non-standard, but its meaning is crystal clear to readers, and clarity, in my opinion, is one of the primary goals of writing.


Exactly. Clarity is far more important than "proper." And the two often dont coincide.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

ElisaBlaisdell said:


> I'm coming late to the party...
> 
> My first reaction was that "all right" was two words, and that "alright" wasn't a word at all. And, as almost everyone else has said, anything goes in dialogue, if it's something that the character would say.


But the odd thing about this case is that 'all right' and 'alright' sound exactly the same, so when someone speaks, you're not sure which one they're using, other than context. So, when we write the dialogue, we have the opportunity to provide the 'correct' word. (Correct in the sense of providing the proper intent, even though the word may not be officially correct.)


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> Exactly. Clarity is far more important than "proper." And the two often dont coincide.


But the fact is that most often than not, the two DO coincide. Using that argument to avoid the use of correct English when it does not increase clarity is simply a false argument.

As a stylistic choice, because you think "alright" would better serve representing the character is an argument that makes sense for a fiction writer. Arguing that you can't make a clear statement simply means you need to work on your ability to express yourself in writing.

ETA: And I find it fascinating that so many people in this discussion said they couldn't express themselves clearly without using alright. Only one that I recall brought up characterization, which might be a very valid reason for considering using the spelling.

Most of us do all kinds of "incorrect" things for stylistic reasons and to serve characterization. I certainly do. But the day I have to use something like that simply because I can't make myself understood without it, I will seriously worry about my abilities as a writer.


----------



## Dragonfly Editing (Janet) (May 29, 2012)

It's my feeling that if everyone used the 'correct' or 'standard' usage all the time, there would be no dilemma. Context would allow you to know what is meant. Having worked in the educational field, it completely goes against the grain to see improper usage and improper grammar used (unless in dialog, of course).


----------



## Danielle Kazemi (Apr 2, 2011)

WHDean said:


> The confusion is a syntactical one, not a choice between words. Dictionaries say that "all right" is an adjective and adverb and that "alright" is a less acceptable variant or they say nothing at all about it. But "alright" is an expletive, which has a syntactical function different from "all right." For example, in the sentence
> 
> "I'll send you the money alright!"
> 
> ...


"I'll send you the alright money!"

I don't think it works as an expletive. It works more as a state of being. "I'm feeling alright." conveys a much, much different meaning than "I'm feeling f---."


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

ChristinePope said:


> Professional editor here: I always use "all right." Until the CMoS tells me it's all right to use "alright," I just won't. It looks wrong. It feels wrong.
> 
> I actually kind of hate it.


Is it all wrong or alwrong? 

Edward C. Patterson 
aka Miss Chatty


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Jan Strnad said:


> It yanks me out of the story, too. My nose turns up and I mutter "Philistine!" under my breath whenever I see it.
> 
> But I'm sure that "alright" is on the road to acceptance and will make it before I die. It's in the dictionary, you can play it in Scrabble, so there you are.
> 
> I might use it in dialogue, if I believe that the character speaking it would spell it that way. Otherwise I avoid it.


"Although the Philistines may jostle,
You will rank as an apostle
From your high exalted shrine."
W.S. Gilbert, Patience


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> Arguing that you can't make a clear statement simply means you need to work on your ability to express yourself in writing.


This sentence may be grammatically correct, but I had to read it several times to gather the writer's intent.

My argument is that sometimes the most concise way of expressing a thought is not grammatically correct. In those instances, I opt for concise over proper.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

JRTomlin said:


> ETA: And I find it fascinating that so many people in this discussion said they couldn't express themselves clearly without using alright.


I don't recall a single person saying they couldn't express themself clearly without using alright.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> But the fact is that most often than not, the two DO coincide. Using that argument to avoid the use of correct English when it does not increase clarity is simply a false argument.


That may be true, but in this case, it does increase clarity. 'All right' and 'alright' do not necessarily mean the same thing.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> I don't recall a single person saying they couldn't express themself clearly without using alright.


Actually that was the main argument. And see the post below from swolf.

ETA: We're at the point of simply repeating previous arguments and are hardly likely to convince each other. If I ever write a character I consider likely to use "alright", I will probably use it. Otherwise, I won't. End of discussion for me, so carry on.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Most of us do all kinds of "incorrect" things for stylistic reasons and to serve characterization. I certainly do. But the day I have to use something like that simply because I can't make myself understood without it, I will seriously worry about my abilities as a writer.


These two statements make no sense together. In the first one you admit you're doing the same thing we're claiming we're doing, and in the second you're claiming we can't make ourselves understood without doing it, just because we admitted doing it.

And you're trying to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

swolf said:


> These two statements make no sense together. In the first one you admit you're doing the same thing we're claiming we're doing, and in the second you're claiming we can't make ourselves understood without doing it, just because we admited doing it.
> 
> And you're trying to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty?


Not at all. I said I do it for reasons OTHER than clarity. That is hardly difficult to understand.

ETA: What a number of people have said is that the reader wouldn't understand the MEANING if they use "all right" instead of "alright". Ii say the fault lies in the writer in that case. If I have a character I think would use "alright" then I might use it. If I think a sentence fragment will serve my stylistic purpose, I'll use it while knowing it is not grammatically correct. Neither are done because the reader wouldn't understand my meaning without using incorrect grammar or spelling.

Now I am not interested in your personal attacks, so I'll leave this thread.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

WHDean said:


> That claim is self-refuting. If you can't articulate your meaning grammatically, you can't articulate your meaning at all. Do explain, after all, how you propose to get an idea in your head into the reader's head without using the common language as a medium? Telepathy?


I think "common language" is the key phrase there. 
My point was that the common usage or understanding of language often differs to what can be found in dictionaries or style guides. If you know that the vast majority of your audience will understand what you mean with a colloquialism, and you feel it works better than a more standard phrasing, then I'm very much in favour of breaking spelling or grammar a little.
Grammar is essentially a set of rules put together to facilitate the job of communicating ideas from one person to another, and, while I agree that those rules are very important, many rules can be safely broken once you understand their intended purpose. It's very rare that a certain rule will be perfect in every single situation.

Granted I'm thinking about dialogue as well here, I do agree that a consistent grammatical framework is more important outside of speech.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I tracked this discussion when I made my first reply, back an hour ago when I was the third poster. I opened my blackberry and had 47 emails. I said to my colleague, "Holy ALL RIGHT. I have 47 emails on a discussion on Kidnleboards." I was asked if it was about the Impending Financial Cliff or the Mayan End of Days. "No," said I. "It's a discussion on . . . Aw, you wouldn't belive me if I told you." We left it at that.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Come on, Edward, this is important stuff. It can make the difference between selling 10 copies a month or 120 copies a year.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Not at all. I said I do it for reasons OTHER than clarity. That is hardly difficult to understand.


No you didn't. You said you did it for "stylistic reasons and to serve characterization." Not sure what 'stylistic reasons' means, but when you're 'serving characterization', you're attempting to provide a clearer image of your character to the readers, and since characters are defined by what they say and do, having them say 'alright' instead of 'allright' would be part of that.

Yes, it's hardly difficult to understand that you're dishonestly attempting to twist our words into things we haven't said.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

vrabinec said:


> Come on, Edward, this is important stuff. It can make the difference between selling 10 copies a month or 120 copies a year.


You're right. All right!   Besides, I haven't seen this same discussion resurrected for some time. There was a time (in the early yawn of threads) when this was the stuff of stars, like one-star review whining and price discussions. It has its place, like the flu shot. 

Miss Chatty
runner up for Kindleboard The Queen of Mean contest


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> Now I am not interested in your personal attacks, so I'll leave this thread.


Translation: Just like I've been ignoring posts I couldn't respond to, I'll ignore this thread entirely.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Edward C. Patterson said:


> I tracked this discussion...


If you're enough of a wonk to request emails when someone posts, you're not getting any sympathy from me.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Is it wonk or alwonk? No sympathy aaked. Do I look like Faust?


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Yellow flag! 

It seems this discussion should be able to proceed without folks taking potshots at each other. Please refrain. Thanks all.


----------



## balaspa (Dec 27, 2009)

I was taught that a lot and all right were two words and I still write them that way.  I, too, seen alright all the time and it bugs me!


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

The number of opposing viewpoints on this subject is telling. Plus, this isn't the first time this topic has been debated on KB.

I am now in the "all right" camp only because I'm less likely to get grief over using it. I used to use "alright" (usually in dialog), and I certainly don't mind when others use it, but it is not important enough to me to argue over. 

I guess we all have our pet peeves. One if mine is when people insist that there's only one right way to do something when that is clearly not the case.


----------



## Hildred (Sep 9, 2012)

Maybe it's a generational thing? Growing up, there was always a clear distinction between "all right" and "alright," just like between "all ways" and "always." Even in my university "alright" was perfectly acceptable to use a "state of being" usage. I even remember holds up in classes when the professor would go over the differences between the two. (For the record, I graduated university in 2010.) 

I've seen this exact argument over and over again ever since writing full time. (In fact, I never knew there was disdain for "alright" until I was looking up other grammar questions and encountered a few...discussions, on the issue.) Nobody really agrees on anything, except for on thing - that it will probably be standard usage one day. Whenever that "one day" is and whether or not that makes it okay (uh oh) to use until then, is the next argument. 

Personally, I use "alright" in dialogue or direct thoughts (based on document searches I ran just now) and can safely say I've never had a complaint. Then again, all my editors, betas, and a majority of my readers are my age or only slightly older.


----------



## dawnaraver (Dec 3, 2012)

My publisher Curiosity Quills Press requires all right.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Harvey said:


> Yellow flag!
> 
> It seems this discussion should be able to proceed without folks taking potshots at each other. Please refrain. Thanks all.


I tried to tell them, but they just wouldn't listen! It was horrible. Can I punish them? Can I put the genital cuffs on swolf? There's no hokey so we have a lot of pent up aggression.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

vrabinec said:


> It's still in the dictionary. I refuse to eliminate any word from usage that's still in there.


It's not *still* in the dictionary -- it's newly in the dictionary. "Alright" is entering usage, not leaving.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2012)

I use 'alright' for more casual characters and/or situations and 'all right' for more serious ones.


----------



## John H. Carroll (Nov 26, 2010)

*shrugs*  I use alright all the time.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Your responses were alright.
> Your responses were all right.
> 
> Tell me what is meant by the first sentence, and then tell me what is meant by the second.


Your first examples are ambiguous because they involve incorrect uses of "right," namely, you don't use "right" for "correct." Responses are correct, not right.



Claudia King said:


> I think "common language" is the key phrase there.
> My point was that the common usage or understanding of language often differs to what can be found in dictionaries or style guides. If you know that the vast majority of your audience will understand what you mean with a colloquialism, and you feel it works better than a more standard phrasing, then I'm very much in favour of breaking spelling or grammar a little.
> Grammar is essentially a set of rules put together to facilitate the job of communicating ideas from one person to another, and, while I agree that those rules are very important, many rules can be safely broken once you understand their intended purpose. It's very rare that a certain rule will be perfect in every single situation.
> 
> Granted I'm thinking about dialogue as well here, I do agree that a consistent grammatical framework is more important outside of speech.


The problem is that your understanding of style guides, dictionaries, and grammars is inaccurate. They don't contain the kind of rules you have in mind (or you should be using different ones). Grammars discuss idiomatic expressions (e.g., colloquialisms, ungrammatical but Standard English expressions) and when and how to use them. A rhetoric (i.e., a style guide) classifies figures of speech (including idioms) and shows you how to use them effectively.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Danielle Kazemi said:


> "I'll send you the alright money!"
> 
> I don't think it works as an expletive. It works more as a state of being. "I'm feeling alright." conveys a much, much different meaning than "I'm feeling f---."


The expletive is a function, not a position. "I'll be there for sure!" isn't a promise; it's meant to show the speaker's enthusiasm.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Adam Pepper said:


> You can articulate your meaning without using proper grammar. It's actually quite simple and it's done every day. Look on any internet forum (other than one full of anal retentive writers) and you'll see how it's done.


The problem is that your understanding of style guides, dictionaries, and grammars is inaccurate. They don't contain the kind of rules you have in mind (or you should be using different ones). Grammars discuss idiomatic expressions (e.g., colloquialisms, ungrammatical but Standard English expressions) and when and how to use them. A rhetoric (i.e., a style guide) classifies figures of speech (including idioms) and shows you how to use them effectively.

By the way, why are people who _follow _ grammar the mental defectives (i.e., "anal retentive")? After all, it doesn't take much skill to be ungrammatical.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> " If you can't articulate your meaning grammatically, you can't articulate your meaning at all. "


That is refuted billions of times a day in conversation. In novels it's refuted in dialog that is not grammatically correct.



> After all, it doesn't take much skill to be ungrammatical.


Agree. And it doesn't take much skill to understand the unskilled. We all do it. Ain't this a great country?



> "Your responses were alright.
> Your responses were all right.
> Tell me what is meant by the first sentence, and then tell me what is meant by the second."


The first one means the responses were acceptable, a bit above average, or just OK.
The second means all the responses were correct.

This thread sounds like an audition for _Princes And The Pea_.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> Your first examples are ambiguous because they involve incorrect uses of "right," namely, you don't use "right" for "correct." Responses are correct, not right.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right


> right
> [rahyt] Show IPA adjective, right·er, right·est, noun, adverb, verb.
> adjective
> 1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
> 2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; *correct*: the right solution; the right answer.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right


> 1right
> adjective \ˈrīt\
> Definition of RIGHT
> 1 : righteous, upright
> ...


You need to let the dictionaries know they're wrong.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2012)

Being a literary elite, I can't accept the use of 'right' as meaning 'correct'. Intolerable.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

glutton said:


> Being a literary elite, I can't accept the use of 'right' as meaning 'correct'. Intolerable.


1. There are different levels of language (diction) appropriate in different social contexts (e.g., formal and informal). The teacher says "correct answers" in the classroom when she's talking to students and "right answers" in the teacher's lounge when she's talking about students with her peers.

2. Diction often has practical or social reasons. "Right" and "wrong" are the broader and more potent terms, because they have moral connotations that "correct" and "incorrect" don't have. That's why teachers avoid (or should) telling students that they're "right" or "wrong."

3. Now, "right response" is a mixed level expression because "response" is a hoity-toity (pseudo-formal) word for "answer" (at least, when talking about tests and not responses) and "right" is a purely informal word for "correct." It's the kind of thing (e.g.) a social climbing teacher trying to sound sophisticated might say, so it's best left to that kind of character. (Note that I'm not saying this about Fred; I'm just using his example.)


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Your first examples are ambiguous because they involve incorrect uses of "right," namely, you don't use "right" for "correct." Responses are correct, not right.


This says it all....the entire planet uses "right" to mean "correct." When we are writing fiction for a wider audience, we are looking to please a wider audience, not a grammar Nazi.


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

WHDean said:


> By the way, why are people who _follow _ grammar the mental defectives (i.e., "anal retentive")? After all, it doesn't take much skill to be ungrammatical.


The skill is in pleasing the audience, not the English doctorates.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> 1. There are different levels of language (diction) appropriate in different social contexts (e.g., formal and informal). The teacher says "correct answers" in the classroom when she's talking to students and "right answers" in the teacher's lounge when she's talking about students with her peers.
> 
> 2. Diction often has practical or social reasons. "Right" and "wrong" are the broader and more potent terms, because they have moral connotations that "correct" and "incorrect" don't have. That's why teachers avoid (or should) telling students that they're "right" or "wrong."
> 
> 3. Now, "right response" is a mixed level expression because "response" is a hoity-toity (pseudo-formal) word for "answer" (at least, when talking about tests and not responses) and "right" is a purely informal word for "correct." It's the kind of thing (e.g.) a social climbing teacher trying to sound sophisticated might say, so it's best left to that kind of character. (Note that I'm not saying this about Fred; I'm just using his example.)


You just make this shit up, don't you?


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2012)

swolf said:


> You just make this [crap] up, don't you?


No, these are secret tenets that only the Super Elites know.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "1. There are different levels of language (diction) appropriate in different social contexts (e.g., formal and informal). The teacher says "correct answers" in the classroom when she's talking to students and "right answers" in the teacher's lounge when she's talking about students with her peers.
> 
> 2. Diction often has practical or social reasons. "Right" and "wrong" are the broader and more potent terms, because they have moral connotations that "correct" and "incorrect" don't have. That's why teachers avoid (or should) telling students that they're "right" or "wrong."
> 
> 3. Now, "right response" is a mixed level expression because "response" is a hoity-toity (pseudo-formal) word for "answer" (at least, when talking about tests and not responses) and "right" is a purely informal word for "correct." It's the kind of thing (e.g.) a social climbing teacher trying to sound sophisticated might say, so it's best left to that kind of character. (Note that I'm not saying this about Fred; I'm just using his example.) "


The auditions are now closed.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

WHDean may sound nit-picky and pedantic, but he's drawing some worthwhile distinctions. These are the sort of subtleties we should be aware of as wordsmiths, however we choose to handle them.

The use of "right" and "correct" is a good example. You might have a teacher who is formal and possibly a bit distant, who will respond to a student's answer with a brisk "Correct!" And she might contrast with a young, wears-his-baseball-cap-backwards teacher who stabs a piece of chalk at that student and says, "Right!"

I grew up with the phrase "right answer" all my life, FWIW, and we never attached a moral element to it. These days, when things like science are highly politicized, it may be time to resurrect that distinction. An answer to a question about evolution or global warming or the age of the Earth might indeed be considered, not just correct or incorrect, but right or wrong by some people.


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Lexi Revellian said:


> 'All right' will offend no one. 'Alright' will offend some readers.
> 
> Lexi


This.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2012)

Jan Hurst-Nicholson said:


> This.


In some cases however, it's likely anyone offended by 'alright' will likely be offended by the content of the book.


----------



## Shaun4 (Jun 29, 2012)

I didn't read page 2 or 3 so maybe someone else said this:

"All right" is most often correct, however there are occasions where "All right" is ambiguous and "alright" is more clear.

"All right" tends to indicate correctness (I know, WHDean, I know).
"Alright" tends to mean 'acceptable.'

The movie star asked his manager, "How does the new contract look?"
(1)The manager replied "The numbers are all right." ie._ It adds up properly._
(2)The manager replied "The numbers are alright." ie. _This will do for now, but next time let's get you some bigger paydays._

If the writer's intent was to say (2) then alright is much clearer in getting that intent to the reader. "All right" would result in confusion.

Just my two cents.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Jan Strnad said:


> WHDean may sound nit-picky and pedantic, but he's drawing some worthwhile distinctions. These are the sort of subtleties we should be aware of as wordsmiths, however we choose to handle them.
> 
> The use of "right" and "correct" is a good example. You might have a teacher who is formal and possibly a bit distant, who will respond to a student's answer with a brisk "Correct!" And she might contrast with a young, wears-his-baseball-cap-backwards teacher who stabs a piece of chalk at that student and says, "Right!"
> 
> I grew up with the phrase "right answer" all my life, FWIW, and we never attached a moral element to it. These days, when things like science are highly politicized, it may be time to resurrect that distinction. An answer to a question about evolution or global warming or the age of the Earth might indeed be considered, not just correct or incorrect, but right or wrong by some people.


Exactly. It is SUPPOSED to be our job as wordsmiths to understand and USE these distinctions.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Jan Strnad said:


> WHDean may sound nit-picky and pedantic, but he's drawing some worthwhile distinctions. These are the sort of subtleties we should be aware of as wordsmiths, however we choose to handle them.
> 
> The use of "right" and "correct" is a good example. You might have a teacher who is formal and possibly a bit distant, who will respond to a student's answer with a brisk "Correct!" And she might contrast with a young, wears-his-baseball-cap-backwards teacher who stabs a piece of chalk at that student and says, "Right!"
> 
> I grew up with the phrase "right answer" all my life, FWIW, and we never attached a moral element to it. These days, when things like science are highly politicized, it may be time to resurrect that distinction. An answer to a question about evolution or global warming or the age of the Earth might indeed be considered, not just correct or incorrect, but right or wrong by some people.


Yes, as writers we should be aware of the shades meanings between synonyms, and when to use the correct one. But that is completely different than saying something like this:



WHDean said:


> Your first examples are ambiguous because they involve incorrect uses of "right," namely, you don't use "right" for "correct." Responses are correct, not right.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

glutton said:


> In some cases however, it's likely anyone offended by 'alright' will likely be offended by the content of the book.


It isn't a matter of being "offended". Who the heck in this thread said they would be offended? It is a matter of being literate.

It is known as being a wordsmith. People who consider themselves writers but don't want to bother to understand language astound me.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> It is known as being a wordsmith. People who consider themselves writers but don't want to bother to understand language astound me.


No, it's known as being a strict grammarian. A Wordsmith understands the rules, but knows when to break them in order to write better. And then they roll their eyes at the pedants who tell them they're doing it wrong.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

swolf said:


> No, it's known as being a strict grammarian. A Wordsmith understands the rules, but knows when to break them in order to write better. And then they roll their eyes at the pedants who tell them they're doing it wrong.


No, I see people in this thread and others who object to even knowing that there are rules and that there are times when they need to NOT break them. Breaking rules is not a value in and of itself unless _it serves some purpose_.

ETA: I have never seen in my own writing that using alright served a purpose. I'll use it if I ever think that it does. But the fact is that it is viewed by a large part of the population as at best a colloquialism or at worst as verging on illiterate.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> No, I see numerous people in this thread and others who object to even knowing that there are rules and that there are times when they need to NOT break them. Breaking rules is not a value in and of itself unless it serves some purpose.


As usual, you're creating strawmen. No one in this thread has 'objected to even knowing that there are rules'. Pretty much everyone who has disagreed with you has agreed that 'already' is non-standard usage. And we've explained multiple times what the purpose is for using it. Just because you keep refusing delivery of the explanation, doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

swolf said:


> As usual, you're creating strawmen. No one in this thread has 'objected to even knowing that there are rules'. Pretty much everyone who has disagreed with you has agreed that 'already' is non-standard usage. And we've explained multiple times what the purpose is for using it. Just because you keep refusing delivery of the explanation, doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose.


I am not going to bother to debate a made up distinction that doesn't exist.

ETA: And there were a number of people who posted in this thread that they simply use "alright" with obviously no care that it is in fact non-standard. That you didn't isn't the point. You're not the only person who posts.

I tell you what. You go find that distinction in a dictionary.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

JRT, SWolf...Really?  All these pages and we're back to the two of you haranguing each other?

Betsy


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> But the fact is that it is viewed by a large part of the population as at best a colloquialism or at worst as verging on illiterate.


You seem to enjoy throwing around opinions as if they're facts.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

JRTomlin said:


> I am not going to bother to debate a made up distinction that doesn't exist.


Yes, just cover your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> JRT, SWolf...Really? All these pages and we're back to the two of you haranguing each other?
> 
> Betsy


It looks that way, Betsy. I promise; I'm done now.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> People who consider themselves writers but don't want to bother to understand language astound me.


Another class writes, understands the language, uses it very well, and disagrees with some others who do the same.



> But the fact is that it is viewed by a large part of the population as at best a colloquialism or at worst as verging on illiterate.


I suspect a large part of the population doesn't give a hoot. They laugh at these discussions.


----------



## Amanda Brice (Feb 16, 2011)

I don't like "alright" in narrative, but don't mind it in dialogue. In fact, "all right" looks and feels weird in dialogue.

A'ight?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Terrence OBrien said:


> Another class writes, understands the language, uses it very well, and disagrees with some others who do the same.
> 
> I suspect a large part of the population doesn't give a hoot. They laugh at these discussions.


Terrence, I suspect you're right, but let me ask you this: Are the ones who don't give a hoot the only ones you write for?


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

You know, language changes all the time. One of my faves is "nauseous," which used to mean "nausea-inducing" (_I passed a nauseous car accident today._) but now almost universally means "nauseated" (_OMG, I feel so nauseous._). Right now, we're in the process of creating "alright." In another hundred years, we'll be there. The only question is whether you're a play-it-safer when it comes to linguistic change (stay with the old usage until the very last person who cared about it has died) because you never get flack for going with the old way, or whether you're daring and want to ride the change wave. Or maybe you're somewhere in the middle: you feel bad about the loss of a fine word like "nauseous," which has been rendered redundant with an existing word, so you're sticking to your guns on that one, whereas you see a good rational (as vrabinec does) for the creation of "alright," so you're going to lead the charge on that one. In the end, it doesn't much matter what individual choices we make. Language will follow its current trend lines in almost every case. In a couple hundred years, many of our language choices will inevitably look dated.


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> You know, language changes all the time. One of my faves is "nauseous," which used to mean "nausea-inducing" (_I passed a nauseous car accident today._) but now almost universally means "nauseated" (_OMG, I feel so nauseous._). Right now, we're in the process of creating "alright." In another hundred years, we'll be there. The only question is whether you're a play-it-safer when it comes to linguistic change (stay with the old usage until the very last person who cared about it has died) because you never get flack for going with the old way, or whether you're daring and want to ride the change wave. Or maybe you're somewhere in the middle: you feel bad about the loss of a fine word like "nauseous," which has been rendered redundant with an existing word, so you're sticking to your guns on that one, whereas you see a good rational (as vrabinec does) for the creation of "alright," so you're going to lead the charge on that one. In the end, it doesn't much matter what individual choices we make. Language will follow its current trend lines in almost every case. In a couple hundred years, many of our language choices will inevitably look dated.


Ofttimes, it works that way. Other times not. 'Ain't', for example, has actually become less acceptable, not more. In their novels, William Makepeace Thackeray and Anthony Trollope could show the educated and upper classes in 19th century England using 'ain't' because the upper classes did at that time. Now they don't. Anyway, I'm not worried about a hundred years from now. I write for how people read now. I will admit that maybe other people are worried about that.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Shaun4 said:


> I didn't read page 2 or 3 so maybe someone else said this:
> 
> "All right" is most often correct, however there are occasions where "All right" is ambiguous and "alright" is more clear.
> 
> ...


"Alright" and "all right" mean the same thing, so we should take that much off the table. You may have missed this (if you skipped part of the thread), so I'll point out that I suggested earlier that the difference between the two words is their functions: "alright" should be used only as an expletive; e.g., "Alright people!" "He fixed the problem alright."

Now, your examples seem to suggest that the pronunciation of the expression accounts for part of the difference, that is, whether people utter the expression like two words (all right) or one word (alright) is where you think the ambiguity arises-unless I'm mistaken.

Here's the thing. Pronunciation varies far more than the two word/one word solution, and it depends on context too. Some people still use the old seventies expression where the two words are dragged out: Disco Stu says, "I'm feelin' alllll riiiight!" No doubt that the two-word spelling better represents what's been said in that case. But Marge says what sounds like one word, "I'm feeling alright." So why not spell it like one word? Because written English doesn't even attempt to reflect the variety of spoken English. Put another way, people don't speak the spelling anyway, so you don't write "alright" for "all right," anymore than you'd write "alllll riiiight" for "all right." You simply have to express how the character said it in other ways.

By the way, "all right" is hyphenated when used as a pre-modifier: "He's an all-right guy," "They're all-right numbers," so there's no confusion over the pronunciation in that case.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Becca Mills said:


> You know, language changes all the time. One of my faves is "nauseous," which used to mean "nausea-inducing" (_I passed a nauseous car accident today._) but now almost universally means "nauseated" (_OMG, I feel so nauseous._). Right now, we're in the process of creating "alright." In another hundred years, we'll be there. The only question is whether you're a play-it-safer when it comes to linguistic change (stay with the old usage until the very last person who cared about it has died) because you never get flack for going with the old way, or whether you're daring and want to ride the change wave. Or maybe you're somewhere in the middle: you feel bad about the loss of a fine word like "nauseous," which has been rendered redundant with an existing word, so you're sticking to your guns on that one, whereas you see a good rational (as vrabinec does) for the creation of "alright," so you're going to lead the charge on that one. In the end, it doesn't much matter what individual choices we make. Language will follow its current trend lines in almost every case. In a couple hundred years, many of our language choices will inevitably look dated.


&#8230;or you're just confusing two types of words, each of which is useful and informative when used properly: the adverb/adjective and the expletive.

_"Calm down, alright!"
"Everything came out all right."_

If you collapse the second into the first, you haven't expanded our vocabulary, you've reduced it.

You seem to assume there's a linear process of acceptance, but language doesn't work that way. As Tomlin said, the word "ain't" has been around for centuries, yet it's still non-standard English. Like a lot of people with rural roots, I use it in certain stock idioms like "That ain't gonna work." But it won't become Standard English for a number of reasons, and I don't normally use it in formal writing (outside dialogue). Of course, I _would _ recommend using "That ain't gonna work" in some formal contexts for rhetorical effect (e.g., a presentation where you're trying to show that some theory or policy doesn't work).

Where I come from people still use "right" as an intensifier-as in, "He'll be right mad when he finds out." This use of right has been around for centuries. Shakespeare even uses it. But it's never been Standard English, and it's now just a regionalism. People there also say, "Them dogs won't hunt," instead of "Those dogs won't hunt." That's another mistake that's been around for centuries.

Most of the imagined linguistic revolutions are just fads that exist for a time in popular writing then fade away.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

A note on dictionary definitions

Dictionaries list all the definitions of a word. That doesn’t mean all the definitions of a given word are consistent and that all definitions are carried into every single context where the word is used. The expression “all right,” for example, means both “satisfactory” (“I’m all right.”) and “excellent” (“I’m all right!”).

A more poignant example is “valid” in logic versus “valid” in everyday language, because the two meanings are inconsistent with one another. In logic, an argument is valid if its conclusion follows from its premises logically. In everyday language, valid means “makes sense” or “I approve.” The argument “All dogs can fly; Rex is a dog; therefore, Rex can fly” is logically valid. But no one would say it’s “a valid argument” in the everyday sense of the word “valid” because the argument is nonsense.

That’s why appeals to dictionaries don’t necessarily prove much.


----------



## jackz4000 (May 15, 2011)

"awright"


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

A day and a half later and you all are still arguing about this?  Don' you have books to write?


----------



## Adam Pepper (May 28, 2011)

Alright Ann, we're almost done.

or

It's all right Ann, we're almost done.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> A note on dictionary definitions





WHDean said:


> Your first examples are ambiguous because they involve incorrect uses of "right," namely, you don't use "right" for "correct." Responses are correct, not right.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right


> right
> [rahyt] Show IPA adjective, right·er, right·est, noun, adverb, verb.
> adjective
> 1. in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
> 2. in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; *correct*: the right solution; the right answer.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right


> 1right
> adjective \ˈrīt\
> Definition of RIGHT
> 1 : righteous, upright
> ...


You're simply incapable of admitting you're wrong, even when presented with undeniable truth.

You said:



WHDean said:


> you don't use "right" for "correct." Responses are correct, not right.


And BOTH dictionaries state, quite clearly, that one definition of 'right' is 'correct'. They even use as examples the specific case we were discussing here: "the right answer" BOTH of them use it.

So, how do you react? Instead of admitting you were wrong in saying "you don't use "right" for "correct."", you go on a long, rambling spiel about how "appeals to dictionaries don't necessarily prove much."

Simply incredible.

_Edited to conform with Forum Decorum --Betsy_


----------



## thebookcoverdesigner (Nov 16, 2012)

I write 'alright', ergo that is the correct way.


----------



## MalloryMoutinho (Aug 24, 2012)

thebookcoverdesigner said:


> I write 'alright', ergo that is the correct way.


Hahahaha...I like your style!

BTW, this thread is hilarious and super entertaining. Shall we start taking bets on when it gets locked?

Honestly, this topic can be summed up pretty easily. Alright isn't right--er, correct--by strict grammatical rules. Whether or not you use it depends upon how much you want to adhere to the "rules."

There are many rules I follow, and many I ignore...depending upon the work, and the genre, and the target audience, and if it's dialogue, and if it's a full moon...you get the idea. (OMG look at all those ands!)

If I lose readers, that's because of my "stylistic" choice. But, that's on me.

We cool?

We cool.

A'ight?

A'ight.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

My colleagues in the office have nicknamed this the alrighteous discussion and have notified Guiness.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2012)

Ann in Arlington said:


> A day and a half later and you all are still arguing about this? Don' you have books to write?


Too busy making sock puppet accounts in proxies to write.

Up to Sock Puppet #91 right now. I have an excel spreadsheet for them and everything.


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

MalloryMoutinho said:


> If I lose readers, that's because of my "stylistic" choice. But, that's on me.


+1

I've noticed that certain contributors on this board often trot out the "you will lose readers" threat when you disagree with whatever they think is correct. The truths is that we are ALL going to lose readers for one reason or another. It might as well be for something you choose to do for stylistic reasons of your own.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

My two cents: When I first sat down to write something substantive in my teens (it was awful), I was curious how "all right" should be spelled out, if it was long form or short form. It was long form only, and the short form was listed as a notorious error. This was the early '90s, before the Internet hit it big and the written language got assaulted by a sudden influx of people who were forced to use it more than they were prepared for. There are many phrases and sayings that have a correct form, but the way we pronounce them in spoken language blurs them; for this reason the old saying "one and the same" is sometimes mangled into "one in the same", and people misspell "racked" as "wracked" all the time, and _do not get me started_ on people who write "reign in" when they mean "rein in".

As soon as I made peace with the fact that "alright" was not correct, I realized "all right" actually looks perfectly fine. There are people who complain it sounds stilted, but frankly those people are just plain wrong; it's stilted only because they're overpronouncing the space between the words. There's really no difference between some people's discomfort with the correct form and their discomfort at seeing a word in print for the first time they've only ever heard or vice-versa, not unlike my disappointment at learning how "ennui" is pronounced. It took me a few times hearing it to be okay with the fact that the C in "placate" is not soft. So anyone who thinks the long form is stilted just needs to get used to it, and it doesn't take long at all to do that.

In the twenty years since I first checked, we should be less accepting of "alright", not more. We haven't accepted the common misspelling "alot", nor the relatively newer "aswell". (Yes, I've seen a guy argue that "aswell" was correct. But he was an idiot.) Language does indeed change, but if we're not accepting "alot" then why are we making room for "alright"? Yes, this is closer in form to "already" (which is totally distinct in meaning now from "all ready"), "always" (also distinct from "all ways"), "altogether" (getting there), and my personal favorite "albeit". There is precedent for the "all" abbreviation, I readily admit, but we don't do that with most such phrases and I think the argument that this doesn't count is pretty legitimate.

Let's be honest: The main reason this has come into such wide usage is because it was so informal that kids were never taught how to spell it in school, and once the Web made it big people just went with whatever spelling they thought worked. People whose primary medium was spoken language, who used written language only as needed and were better at reading it than writing, were forced en masse (this phrase is case in point) to use a medium where written language was all they had to work with. This isn't so much the evolution of language as a clash with an invasive species. I've seen perfectly legitimate Internet-based evolution of language in that same time, such as the adoption of words like blog. But when basic spelling and grammar are under attack, it's worth drawing the line somewhere, and there's no truly compelling argument to move this one. The fact that languages change over time, sometimes even rapidly, should not be reduced to a cheap excuse to just throw everything to the wind.


----------



## DRMarvello (Dec 3, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> Let's be honest: The main reason this has come into such wide usage is because it was so informal that kids were never taught how to spell it in school, and once the Web made it big people just went with whatever spelling they thought worked.


Unless the Internet "made it big" in the 19th or early 20th century, it seems to have had little to do with the popularization of the word...

From New Oxford American Dictionary:


> Usage: The merging of all and right to form the one-word spelling _alright_ is first recorded toward the end of the 19th century (unlike other similar merged spellings such as altogether and already, which date from much earlier). There is no logical reason for insisting that all right be two words when other single-word forms such as altogether have long been accepted. Nevertheless, although found widely, _alright_ remains nonstandard.


From Merriam-Webster:


> The one-word spelling _alright_ appeared some 75 years after _all right_ itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted _alright_ is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than _all right_ but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright - Gertrude Stein>.


What's interesting to me is that _alright_ stubbornly persists, in spite of the vehement and dogmatic insistence of so many people that it is wrong.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> Terrence, I suspect you're right, but let me ask you this: Are the ones who don't give a hoot the only ones you write for?


I don't matter, and what I do doesn't matter. I'm commenting on the idea that concern for these things extends beyond a small group of enthusiasts.

But in terms of using a living language, I try to recognize that its life comes from its use by that large group that really doesn't give a hoot. The language emerges from those non-hooters. I respect that.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Lummox JR said:


> My two cents: When I first sat down to write something substantive in my teens (it was awful), I was curious how "all right" should be spelled out, if it was long form or short form. It was long form only, and the short form was listed as a notorious error. This was the early '90s, before the Internet hit it big and the written language got assaulted by a sudden influx of people who were forced to use it more than they were prepared for. There are many phrases and sayings that have a correct form, but the way we pronounce them in spoken language blurs them; for this reason the old saying "one and the same" is sometimes mangled into "one in the same", and people misspell "racked" as "wracked" all the time, and _do not get me started_ on people who write "reign in" when they mean "rein in".
> 
> As soon as I made peace with the fact that "alright" was not correct, I realized "all right" actually looks perfectly fine. There are people who complain it sounds stilted, but frankly those people are just plain wrong; it's stilted only because they're overpronouncing the space between the words. There's really no difference between some people's discomfort with the correct form and their discomfort at seeing a word in print for the first time they've only ever heard or vice-versa, not unlike my disappointment at learning how "ennui" is pronounced. It took me a few times hearing it to be okay with the fact that the C in "placate" is not soft. So anyone who thinks the long form is stilted just needs to get used to it, and it doesn't take long at all to do that.
> 
> ...


That's more or less my experience. I look things up and figure why people think they're right or wrong. Nine times out of ten, there's a good reason that I didn't see before. And like I said earlier, once you see the reason, it can't be unseen.

You've also probably explained why people insist on non-standard forms: they're just used to seeing them and they don't see or understand the reason there's a problem, so they say they're right and insist that no one can tell them otherwise. The last part is true, of course; anyone can do what he wants. He just can't have his cake and eat by claiming there's no reason not to.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

swolf said:


> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right
> 
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right
> You're simply incapable of admitting you're wrong, even when presented with undeniable truth.
> ...


My dictionary defines _jail _ using prison and _prison _ using jail. But in my country, provincially run detention centres are called _jails _ and federally runs ones are called _prisons_. You should therefore send the queen a letter explaining that her subjects are wrong because the dictionary says so.

My dictionary defines _ethics _ using morality and _morality _ using ethics. Yet philosophers, ethicists, and moral psychologists draw a distinction between the words. You should therefore go to your local university and explain to the faculties of those departments that they're wrong because the dictionary says so.

Or...you could recognize the fact that definitions are contextual and that the dictionary just lists them indiscriminately. All Vrabinec's examples of "answers were all right" involved educational contexts. That's the only context that matters unless someone specifies otherwise. In educational contexts-all I've been involved in and read about-a distinction is made between correct/incorrect and right/wrong. If you don't believe me, go ask a teacher. Go look at exams. Go read teachers manuals. Telling me what the dictionary says is as irrelevant as it would be to the queen or the university faculty.

_Edited to conform with Forum Decorum. --Betsy_


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2012)

Up to Sockpuppet #114 now... sigh.


----------



## Claudia King (Oct 27, 2012)

I feel like this discussion's ascended to a plain of grammatical technicalities that's beyond me.
I'm going to go and write erotic BDSM instead of doing my grammar homework.

AWLRAIT? O__O


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

WHDean said:


> &#8230;or you're just confusing two types of words, each of which is useful and informative when used properly: the adverb/adjective and the expletive.
> 
> _"Calm down, alright!"
> "Everything came out all right."_
> ...


Not sure how any of the above undercuts what I said. The trend with "alright" is toward replacement of "all right" in all cases -- I think so, at any rate. Trends with other words are and have been different. Some words trend within particular language communities and some trend more broadly. Trends stop, reverse course, pick up -- whatever. My point is that the movement from "all right" to "alright" is underway, and bemoaning it isn't going to change it. If it does reverse course, it's unlikely to be because of conscious effort on the part of a particular group of speakers.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

> "Most of the imagined linguistic revolutions are just fads that exist for a time in popular writing then fade away. "


The imagined ones fade? Alright!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

2nd Yellow Card for this thread. Those of you who are in the pool for when this thread will be locked might put more money on tonight....

Some posts have been edited to conform with Forum Decorum.

Alrighty, then....

Betsy


----------



## EthanRussellErway (Nov 17, 2011)

Alright, Betsy!  Everything is going to be all right.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

WHDean said:


> Your first examples are ambiguous because they involve incorrect uses of "right," namely, you don't use "right" for "correct." Responses are correct, not right.


You're right, but since "right" has become synonymous with "correct" in street talk, and is more frequently used in real life dialogue, I would use it (depending on the character's language skills).


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)




----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Cherise, your picture didn't come up. Was....was it...?


----------



## John Twipnook (Jan 10, 2011)

I use "a'aight," myself. It reinforces my manly image.


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

vrabinec said:



> Cherise, your picture didn't come up. Was....was it...?


LOL! Nope, just a popcorn-eating gif.


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

WHDean said:


> My dictionary defines _jail _ using prison and _prison _ using jail. But in my country, provincially run detention centres are called _jails _ and federally runs ones are called _prisons_. You should therefore send the queen a letter explaining that her subjects are wrong because the dictionary says so.
> 
> My dictionary defines _ethics _ using morality and _morality _ using ethics. Yet philosophers, ethicists, and moral psychologists draw a distinction between the words. You should therefore go to your local university and explain to the faculties of those departments that they're wrong because the dictionary says so.
> 
> ...


More deflection.

Never admit you're wrong. Never.

Have you ever been diagnosed?


----------



## Janet Michelson (Jun 20, 2012)

swolf said:


> More deflection.
> 
> Never admit you're wrong. Never.
> 
> Have you ever been diagnosed?


     

Have you?


----------



## swolf (Jun 21, 2010)

Janet Michelson said:


> Have you?


For what? Quoting the dictionary?


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2012)

John Twipnook said:


> It reinforces my manly image.


Yeah, baby!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

I think we're done here. . . .


----------

