It’s also okay in this context: My friend had an accident and lost his left arm and his left leg. He’s all right now.
“Alright” is never okay to use.
Well, actually, yeah, it is. It also shows up as OK to use in my 1990 M-W.
Piffle.
I find it curious that the usage note says “It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications.” The Associated Press Stylebook unambiguously proscribes against it: “all right (adv.) Never alright. Hyphenate only if used colloquially as a compound modifier: He is an all-right guy.”
I wonder what journalistic publications it’s common in.
I don’t particularly have an issue with the word’s acceptance. I’m pretty sure I’ve used it very occasionally myself. But I don’t get the bit about journalistic publications, unless there is some other major English journalistic style guide that is all right with “alright.”
I have a friend that says “blah-j-blah”. I think she’s trying to mingle Mary J. Bligh’s name in somehow.
But I’ve never seen “should of” in writing, whereas I have had someone complain about my spoken use of “would’ve”.
Besides, plenty of people have shifted to “woulda, coulda, shoulda” anyway.
Blasé-blah is just old ass slang. It just means someone was talking a lot of bullshit… “Talking that ol’ blasé blah,”.
That’s surprising. Here’s a search of this very board, trying to limit it to usages that are not talking about the grammar of “should of.”
I don’t know how good that estimated count of 36K hits is, but only about one of every ten on each page of results is not a misspelling of “should’ve.”
In the second case, you’re clearly wrong to insert a letter where none exists.
I am a seething mass of pet peeves regarding this topic. If I had to pick two, they would be:
-
I am aware of the history of the word with the spelling A-S-K. However, said history happened a long time ago. Now, the pronunciation should match the spelling, because “ax/axe” as both a noun and a verb refers to something completely different.
-
“Who” is the subject, “whom” is the object.
As a related point, the phrase “grammar Nazi” is in terrible taste. It’s not as backward as “Feminazi,” inasmuch as the Nazis repressed feminists, but still demonstrates insensitivity to genuine persecution.
So how do you feel about “colonel” (or the British pronunciation of “lieutenant”)? Words, especially in English, are quite often not pronounced as they are spelled. Not a big deal. And how do we get “orderv” out of “hors d’oeuvres.” Clearly, the “v” comes before the “r.”
To me, the most egregious ones are those that are now so common that they’re considered acceptable. Best example that I can think of off the top of my head is the nearly universal pronunciation of “long-lived” using a short “i”.
The correct pronunciation should use a long “i”, since “lived” is the adjective form of “life”, not the past tense of “live”. How would you pronounce “nine-lived” if describing a cat? The problem with these universal mistakes is that they confusticate the language. (OK, that’s not a word, but it does less harm to rules of regularity than the ones I rail against.)
That bugs me too. I worked for a guy who used the word, especially the phrase “get orientated.” I tried to disabuse him, using “supplementation” as an analog, but to no effect. I just got the blank stare, and he continued to misspeak. That was his biggest failing as a boss, so I let it slide.
This one is quite often humorous. I say we just enjoy it.
As a neighbor used to say, “Well cut my legs off and call me Shorty!” I have no idea what she really meant by that, but it seems to appy here.
I say that’s a perfectly good neologism, a portmenteau of flustered and frustrated. I bet we’ve all had occasion to put this to good use!
Well, I could care less about this one. Not much less, though.
Beautiful – I don’t remember ever hearing that! Worth the price of the thread.
Clearly, that connotes the condition resulting from an overdose of laxatives.
har har 
[quote=“6_6_6, post:67, topic:311475”]
[li]of instead of have, as in He must of seen it.[/li][/QUOTE]
I had a friend/roommate who used “had of” for “would have”. I couldn’t believe it, as he was otherwise quite well educated, and also the type who was picky about correctness. When I met his mother and realized how far he’d come, I was glad I’d let it slide. Plus it was amusing to hear him chide others while using language like that. I guess he may have been more of a friend to me than I was to him. Sigh.
Possibly near the Chesapeake, where oysters are “ersters”?
Plan to spend a lot of your time in Nutville, then, since this is one of the most common spelling mistakes in English. As with “prostrate”, this one can often be amusing, especially taking “loose” as a verb.
In these parts, the answer would be “Where’s all y’all’s cars parked?”
“That” is definitive, “which” is descriptive. Using them correctly increase clarity. It’s not a pet peeve, but a point that good writers attend to.
I agree with you here, and with all your other points not quoted above. My guess is they wanted a simple rule that people could easily follow, rather than a meaning one that would serve the purposes of clear and precise communication. Shame on them! (whoever They were.)
Yes, but then, if we abandon all the rules, with what are we left? (I snicker at my avoiding ending the sentence with a preposition: precisely one of the rules we really don’t need.)
Native speakers run roughshod over many useful rules.
It’s a difficult path to tread, between the ridiculously tight-fisted proscriptive approach of the French, versus a free for all, where words lose their precise meanings and writing clearly gets mired in contradictory natural rules. As with government, neither anarchy nor tyrrany is acceptible, but is democracy best?
Do you also still say “Havai Ee” ?
I’m amused when spell checkers try to combine “all right” into “alright” in cases where I’m pretty confident I meant what I wrote. That and a plethora of other misguided suggestions (especially by MS Word’s grammar checker). No doubt, in the future, language rules will change due to adoption of this misguidance. If MS Word thinks it’s right, it must be! (groan)
It does actually exist. The fact that many people prefer a variant pronunciation and spelling that does not have a second R is of little concern to me.
They’re correct but unfortunate. We should avoid adding more rule-breakers, and not encourage adding more.
We get the "r’ sound from the English pronunciation of the French “oeu”, just as we get the “r” in Goedel from the German “oe”. (Forgive my omission of umlauts.)
Well, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it, regardless of how Brett Favre pronounces his name. 
I’m used to most Britishisms by now, but one I’ve never gotten used to is their version of “furor”: “furore,” with the E pronounced (long-E sound).
Wikipedia agrees with you. You’re in the minority, though, especially regarding spelling.
It’s really not.
No one argues for tossing out all the rules, so you can save your breath.
If native speakers run roughshod over it, that’s prima facie evidence that it’s not a ‘useful’ rule.
And the Academie Francaise does not rule french with an iron grip. They publish a dictionary and I believe, maybe set some standards for government writing but the average joe frenchman pays as much heed to what they say is correct as they want to.
But there is no “r” in either of those pronunciations. That’s what I don’t get. Goethe in American English is often pronounced “GAIR-tuh” or “GER-tuh” (or even “GOATH-EE” here in Chicago), but there’s no “r,” or even hint of one in the German pronunciation. It sounds somewhat like the way British English speakers might pronounce the vowel in “fur” with a dropped “r”, but it sure as hell to me doesn’t sound like a rhotic.
That “r” drives me nuts. I had a Hungarian-English dictionary say that the word köszönöm (“thank you”) is pronounced like “KER-ser-nerm” in English, which sounds absolutely ridiculous to me until I realized that it actually does sound somewhat similar in Received Pronunciation UK English, where the “r” is dropped, but downright comical in American English. “KUH-suh-nuhm” would be a good bit off the mark, but a hell of a lot closer and more easily understood in American English.
So, in other words, if you’re going to throw an “r” into “Goedel” and “Goethe,” I’m going to throw it into “sherbet.” 
I was an adult before I realized it was “sherbet.” In West Texas, everyone called it “sherbert.”
Way cooler than the all too common fustrated I’ve heard.