Or not?

I'm all right, alright

Read this article. I remember having a discussion with my friend that, although I use 'alright' sometimes, it is not an acceptable form and the correct transcription should be 'all right'. My friend then pointed out that, as per this article, could there not be a difference in meaning between 'alright' and 'all right' similar to the 'already' and 'all ready' distinction.

i.e.

'Are they all ready, already?' by which the second 'already' is a synonym for 'now' or 'this soon?'

'Don't worry, you got the answers all right. Don't cry. Are you alright?' by which the second alright is a synonym of 'okay' or 'well'.

I know this has been discussed before, but would be interested in people's views. For the sake of manuscripts to publishers I do only use 'all right', but in protest. I personally think that there is place in the English language for both. If not, I may start using 'doth' and 'thee' again.

Seems fairly clear from the outset that alright is in the dictionary as an alternative to all right.

I personally say alright, unless I mean to say all right (as in all correct).

So there is alright (fine, ok) and all right (100%, all correct, not facing left).

But by the same token, even I wouldn't crucify someone for saying all right when they meant alright. Though the same mistake the other way around would look stupid.

I think that's the point, IB. People think that 'alright' is an abomination and should be swiftly booted out of the English Language.

To quote from the article:

Kingsley Amis, in The King's English (HarperCollins 1997), wrote: "I still feel that to inscribe 'alright' is gross, crass, coarse and to be avoided, and I say so now." But why it is all those things no one seems to know. Kingsley Amis again: "Its interdiction is as pure an example as possible of a rule without a reason, and in my case may well show nothing but how tenacious a hold early training can take."

To be honest, how people can call 'alright' an abomination, and yet welcome words like 'blogging' is quite beyond my comprehension.

However, I will say this. Language evolves, and the purists have to understand that change is an inevitability, even in language. I was once battered down for demanding that people were stupid for calling private schools 'public schools'. Apparently, as 'public school' is now the commonly accepted term for a privately run school, I have to accept the change.

So I accept that people are liable to be incapable of distinguishing a public good from a private service. I still think they're stupid though.

I tend to use ‘all right’ to avoid an issue. I’ve just checked my copy of Fowler (1999 ed) which says ‘all right’ is the correct version but ‘alright’ is infiltrating the language. (with the implication that it should be a hanging offence) OMS says definitely ‘all right’. Bill Bryson (Troublesome Words) agrees that it’s the officially accepted version but reckons ‘alright’ is… well… alright. We accept others such as ‘already’ and ‘altogether’, so why not this.

If ‘alright’ becomes an accepted alternative for ‘OK’, then we can be more specific about using ‘all right’ to mean ‘all correct’. We should start a campaign… alright?

Dee

From my Encarta:

WORD KEY: USAGE Is it all right to use alright? No, only all right is correct. Some people think this one-word spelling is justified by the analogy of already and altogether, and that it is sometimes useful to be able to distinguish between all right and alright (just like altogether and all together: The answers were alright (=satisfactory). The answers were all right (=correct). But alright has never been accepted as good usage. <Added>