By which lexicon were you guided in determining the word “alright” is incorrect? My dictionary is from 1985 and it’s got a disputed entry for “alright”. I submit its usage is acceptable. In fact, I believe I have proof that there is pure necessity for this word.
One very good reason for preferring “all right” and disdaining “alright” is that, unlike the other pairs I mentioned in the OP, there is no difference in meaning, no distinction to be preserved by using “alright”.
That word is called “nonstandard”, or ignored altogether, by the references I’ve checked. For example, see Dictionary.com.
One might as well argue that “irregardless” should be accepted simply because so many folks use it when they mean “regardless”.
Oh, and if anyone is wondering why I take such stuff to heart: I’m a proofreader. My search-and-destroy mission in life is to root out error in the printed word.
Maybe, but contractions of frequently paired words have a perfectly respectable history in the development of language, whereas the spurious addition of useless prefixes (as in “irregardless”) don’t. Plus, I think there is a semantic difference between “all right” and “alright”; the former (to me) suggests “Tommy got the questions all right,” while the latter is more a gesture of acquiescence:
“Wanna go play some pool?”
“Alright.”
YMMV, of course, but I think in the latter context “all right” looks a little odd. All of what is right?
…
gatopescado used “alright” to eliminate ambiguity. Calling Airman Doors “all right” is factually incorrect. He was more moderate there than I’ve ever seen him.
…
[shuffles soft-shoe] :doffs imaginary top hat: [/shuffles soft-shoe]
