And, no, there’s nothing inherently wrong with “alright,” but it is still non-standard, so best to avoid in order not to piss anyone off.
Very sensible. There is no reason why “alright” should be wrong, but it is considered by some, so best to avoid it. Same with “could care less” in formal writing, even though it’s perfectly good and common American English idiom.
Plus, one can argue that the form “alright” offers more clarity of meaning than “all right.” For example, in this article, the headline is “The Banks Are Not All Right.” Does the headline mean “the banks are not all correct” or “the banks are not well/agreeable/in good shape?” The word “alright” would remove that ambiguity. Now, I use “all right” in my own formal prose, but I like “alright.”
I take this as a challenge! Surely we can think of something.
The problem I have with this is that you’re trying to make “alright” mean “completely right”; but in every case I can think of where “all " and "al” are both legitimate words/phrases, it is “all " and not "al” that can mean “completely ." “All ready” can mean “completely ready”; “already” does not. “All together” can mean “completely together”; “altogether” does not. And I can’t think of any (other) examples where "al” is accepted as a legitimate alternative spelling of, but synonymous to, “all *.”
I’m not following you. “Alright” does not mean “completely right.” It means “well/agreeable/etc.” I’m not directly comparing it to “already” in my example, but I think the “all together” vs “altogether” example fits the pattern.
But my point was, if you wanted to make it unambiguous, you could have “all right” meaning “all correct” and “alright” meaning “well/agreeable/etc.”
Missed the edit above:
But my point was, if you wanted to make it unambiguous, you could have “all right” meaning “all correct” and “alright” meaning “well/agreeable/etc.”
For example:
The students were all right. (as in, they all were correct)
The students were alright. (as in, they were safe or they were pleasant, etc.)
I’m not saying we should have unambiguous forms–I’m fine without them–but an argument can be made for having two for additional clarity. Usually, the pedants come out en masse to decry some perceived abuse of the English language, claiming it destroys clarity. Here is a case where an additional form can actually disambiguate between two different meanings. So why the big stink?
My peeve: when people say ‘grammar’ when they mean ‘usage’, especially when those people are complaining about other people’s usage.
You say selective, I say irrelevant. I know that most style guides frown on alright and when I’m writing in SAE, I don’t generally use it either. That’s not the point. The point is that you correctly state that it is not currently appropriate in formal english and then erroneously extend that to mean that it is not ever appropriate which is not the stand GG is taking. Alright?
Grammatically speaking, you cannot compleat a project, but once the project has been completed, it might then be genuinely compleat. (iow, “compleat” is not a verb).
While I sometimes get annoyed at the incorrect use of “ironic”*, I think it applies delightfully to you, Shayna.
Problem is, you are to the science of linguistics what a creationist is to biology. You’ve got some theological beliefs in the Origin of Language and in some sort of Objective Standard of Correctness, but that belief has absolutely no foundation in the real world. You are ignorant of how language actually works, and you’ve repeatedly demonstrated that ignorance in this thread.
Not to say that you’re not a perfectly fine copy-editor. Being a copy editor no more requires a deep understanding of language than being a pharmacist requires a deep understanding of natural selection. Your job is to enforce some arbitrary game rules instead of being able to understand how language actually works, and that’s fine and important.
But when you start saying totally incoherent things like “but that usage is incorrect” to apply to a usage that conveys the intended meaning, you display your straight-up ignorance in a laughable manner.
To be perfectly clear, here’s an incorrect use of the idiom “I could care less”:
“I could care less whether it snows tomorrow.”
That’s incorrect because I really hope it snows tomorrow. Because I care a great deal about whether it snows tomorrow, I could really literally and without sarcasm care less whether it snows tomorrow. But virtually everyone who reads that sentence will assume that I don’t care whether it snows tomorrow. I’ve used the words in a straightforward fashion, and in so doing, I’ve communicated the opposite of the meaning I intended to communicate.
There is no other reasonable standard for whether a usage is correct or incorrect.
Again, bullshit. I understand and appreciate language just fine.
For instance, I recognize the difference between “if you want to appear a fool” and “you are a fool.”
One is an actual insult, the other is a suggestion.
I’ve supported the fact that “could care less” is not the accepted standard idiom when one means they could not care less, just because some people use it that way. Talk to me in 100 years if it ever takes over as the idiom and “couldn’t care less” falls out of use, as “head over heels” has supplanted “heels over head,” or as “eat one’s cake and have it, too” is entirely unheard-of anymore, even though it was the original idiom and is actually more correct than the now-used “have one’s cake and eat it, too” (which is perfectly possible, even though what one means is something that is not at all possible, like eating one’s cake and still having it).
So get off your high horse — you’re no expert just because you want to play one on the Internet.
It seems the evidence is that most American speakers use it that way, and by a good margin.
I don’t think anyone is arguing what is formally considered “correct.” In formal speech and writing, I always err on the side of conservatism, and I don’t think anyone arguing for “could care less” would advise otherwise, but I shouldn’t speak for them. It’s just that I don’t buy the argument that because it is “illogical” it is wrong. I’m not convinced the structure is based purely on a mishearing of the phrase. We (or at least I) use phrases like “I could give a shit” to mean “I couldn’t give a shit” or “as if/like I could give a shit.” After thinking about the phrase “I could care less,” and how my brain parses it when I use it and hear it, it seems to be the same way as I parse “I could give a shit.” Whether it’s negation by association or truncation of “as if/like,” the phrases feel like they follow the same pattern to me.
On the contrary, both are insults (specifically in the context in which you made your statement); your claim otherwise is further evidence of your ignorance. To be charitable, that is.
Surely, as a copy editor, you know the passive voice is to be avoided, yes? Then why do you say “accepted” above? Accepted by whom?*
It is, of course, accepted by nearly everybody, except for a few bluenoses.
First, love the continued irony of you telling me to get off my high horse. Keep it up, please!
Second, I’m no expert in natural selection, either, but that won’t keep me from calling out someone who says that natural selection can’t explain the eyeball. It doesn’t take an expert to refute the absurd depths of your ignorance on this subject; it only takes a basic familiarity with the subject.
nm
Or non-flammable.
OOPS! You’re correct. I heard it right in my head and wrote it wrong. :smack:
Care’-a-mel
I was just reading an article and it reminded me of my favorite picky thing. I hate it when people use women as an adjective. I cuss in my head whenever I see or hear someone refer to women coaches or women CEOs or women truckdrivers or whatever. My irritation comes purely from a place of parallelism; if you wouldn’t describe someone as a man [noun] then don’t do it with women. Man doctor? Clearly not. Therefore the appropriate form should be female doctor. It’s irrational because there’s no real reason why they have to match, but I want them to so, so bad.
Noun-as-adjective is a real thing: boat race, toothbrush, government disease control research center.
When “woman doctor” is used unnecessarily, it’s sexist, just like “black doctor” can be racist when used unnecessarily. But when it’s used appropriately, e.g., to discuss Elizabeth Blackwell’s historical significance–I have no problem with it.
There. Now I’ll go back to my man cave.
No, I get nouns as adjectives. It’s the discord between woman/male. If a paper on Elizabeth Blackwell the woman doctor will also reference men doctors then we’re cool.