# Why is "alright" not all right? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 15, 2002, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433 "2002-03-15T06:36:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![struct](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@struct](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/struct)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/1 "2002-03-15T06:36:45Z")
Always is all right. Albeit is all right. Although is all right. Why isn’t alright all right? ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/2 "2002-03-15T06:55:20Z")
Alright is all right. It’s just a variant of all right. ---
**Author:** ![Primaflora](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/898d66/32.png) [@Primaflora](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Primaflora)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/3 "2002-03-15T06:57:12Z")
It is. Why do you think it isn’t? It’s an acceptable alternative spelling. Chambers says it is a less acceptable alternative but it’s still used. My SO uses it all the time and his publishers allow it. ---
**Author:** ![struct](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@struct](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/struct)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/4 "2002-03-15T07:03:36Z")
Many of the cites I found at [onelook.com](http://onelook.com) list it as a “non-standard usage”. I had it drummed into me as a kid that the “alright” spelling was an improper corruption along the lines of “ain’t”. The Merriam-Webster website has this to say: > [@](#): > > 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 \. So why do the grammarians get their panties in a bunch about “alright” but seem to be fine with other contractions of “all” and something else? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/5 "2002-03-15T07:06:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by struct \* > \*\*Why isn’t alright all right? \*\* Why should it be? ---
**Author:** ![ShadowWarrior](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7993a0/32.png) [@ShadowWarrior](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowWarrior)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/6 "2002-03-15T09:33:42Z")
I’ve never had a problem (or spoken to anyone who does) with ‘alright’. In fact, I’ve always been under the impression they had slightly different meanings: 1. I’m alright = I’m fine and 1. These answers are all right. = … all correct… to use ‘alright’ in (2) would imply that the answers were ok/not bad/adequate rather than correct. Likewise, using ‘all right’ in (1) would imply that I was entirely correct (which I am, of course!😃 ) I’ve got no particular reason for this usage, other than the fact it seems logical to me… Is that alright with you?😛 ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/7 "2002-03-15T14:44:13Z")
I think you’ll find that most English words with the “al-” prefix, e.g. “already” & “although,” are not combinations of “all” and the root word, but of “al,” meaning “even” (compare German “also”, meaning “therefore”–as in “even thus”). “Alright” was probably a back-formation of “all right,” likely inspired–erroneously–by the above words. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/8 "2002-03-15T15:10:22Z")
If you write “alright,” I’ll understand what your meaning is. But I’ll also make a judgment about you and your education level. The same goes for “alot,” “should of” instead of “should have,” and “suppose to” instead of “supposed to.” ---
**Author:** ![struct](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f0a364/32.png) [@struct](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/struct)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/9 "2002-03-15T15:43:01Z")
Thank you Gary T, and no thanks to the rest of you jamokes. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Popup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/94ad74/32.png) [@Popup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Popup)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/10 "2002-03-15T16:06:33Z")
Hold on **struct** , I don’t think we should pay too much attention to that assertation by **GaryT**. I was just about to write a reply to him, stating that he holds a minority view. If you look up [almighty](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=almighty), [although](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=although), [altogether](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=altogether) or [already](http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=already) you will find that they all come from the word **all** , albeit in various stages of development. From Old English **eall** (almighty) via Middle English **al** (altogether) to **all** (alright). The only reason alright hasn’t made it into all dictionaries is that the word arrived relatively late - it has nothing to do with any different formation. And as **Fowler** noted, ‘alright’ sometimes works better than ‘all right’: > [@](#): > > …“The answers are alright” (= “The answers are O.K.”) is less ambiguous than “The answers are all right” (which could mean “All the answers are right”). (from the [alt.english.usage FAQ](http://www.faqs.org/faqs/alt-usage-english-faq/)) I agree that it does not look good in formal writing, but that is a matter of taste, not grammar. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/11 "2002-03-15T17:09:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by CurtC \* > \*\*If you write “alright,” I’ll understand what your meaning is. But I’ll also make a judgment about you and your education level. The same goes for “alot,” “should of” instead of “should have,” and “suppose to” instead of “supposed to.” \*\* I think that’s a tad unfair. ‘Alright’ is nowhere near the grammatical corruption displayed in ‘alot’ or ‘should of’. Those latter examples you gave are mainly used by the younger generation, misspelling a phrase they hear frequently. ‘Alright’, on the other hand, is obviously not; if one was to hear someone say the word out loud, they would assume it was spelt ‘all right’, or ‘allright’. They wouldn’t remove the L. Plus, it is unlikely ‘alot’ will ever be a formal phrase in the English language (or at least not for hundreds of years). ‘Alright’ is already considered correct by many dictionaries. ---
**Author:** ![Calliope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Calliope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calliope)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/12 "2002-03-15T17:45:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Popup \* > **The only reason alright hasn’t made it into all dictionaries is that the word arrived relatively late - it has nothing to do with any different formation.** It made it into my dictionary: Alright _adv. Nonstandard_: All right. In any case, this is the exact word that eliminated me from the 3rd grade spelling bee, reducing me to tears. I have never forgotten that it is not all right to use alright. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/13 "2002-03-15T18:39:19Z")
It’s nonstandard because the consensus is it’s nonstandard. You can use it, but be prepared to be considered ignorant of the language. Would anyone advocate the use of “alwrong,” BTW? If “alright” is correct, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2002, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/14 "2002-03-15T23:30:03Z")
Popup, my dictionary shows “although” to be formed from “al”=even and though. This makes a lot more sense than a combination of all and though. Methinks the dictionary you linked is in error on that point. For many of the other words, it does appear correct that the combination was made with all. Apparently I overgeneralized in my post. ---
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2002, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/15 "2002-03-16T01:06:15Z")
> [@](#): > > I think that’s a tad unfair. ‘Alright’ is nowhere near the grammatical corruption displayed in ‘alot’ or ‘should of’. I think we should avoid loaded terms like “corruption” in a discussion about language. It isn’t linguistically meaningful as language _change_ is a natural feature of all languages, and the word “corruption” implies that one alternative form can be superior to another in an objective way. “Alot” isn’t a corruption, it’s the result of a process that has been at work in the English language for a while. Articles and nouns merge and split all the time. Or are you going to insist that cooks wear naprons and Florida exports noranges? I’ll grant you that “should of” is obviously a phrase that has its origins in a mishearing of “should’ve” but it is on its way to becoming just another of the many ways to use “of.” Prepositions are very flexible things! > [@](#): > > Always is all right. Albeit is all right. Although is all right. Why isn’t alright all right? > [@](#): > > Would anyone advocate the use of “alwrong,” BTW? If “alright” is correct, why not? You can’t draw meaningful conclusions about correct language forms by applying logic at this level, since correctness in language comes from usage, not from choosing the most “logical” form out of competing alternatives. It is useful for understanding etymology of words, or teasing out underlying grammatical rules, but it’s a no-go for judging correctness. -fh ---
**Author:** ![MrO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/50afbb/32.png) [@MrO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrO)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2002, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-alright-not-all-right/98433/16 "2002-03-16T12:40:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hazel-rah \* > \*\*I think we should avoid loaded terms like “corruption” in a discussion about language. It isn’t linguistically meaningful as language _change_ is a natural feature of all languages, and the word “corruption” implies that one alternative form can be superior to another in an objective way. > > [snip] > > I’ll grant you that “should of” is obviously a phrase that has its origins in a mishearing of “should’ve” but it is on its way to becoming just another of the many ways to use “of.” Prepositions are very flexible things! > \*\* True, languages change all the time, and pedants are annoying. But it’s hard for me to accept “should of.” We have “should,” a modal auxiliary, combined with a verb in the present perfect, e.g., “have done.” To say “I should of done” just doesn’t make sense–it tells me that the speaker isn’t able to distinguish the present perfect, which is one of my favorite tenses. (I know, it’s a little weird to have a favorite tense.) At the risk of being one of those annoying pedants, “I should have done” seems to me objectively better. I confess that I really don’t care for “alright” and “alot” either, but I can tolerate them. But “should of?” We’re going to hell in a handbasket, I say.