ahold

[Baker, John]

        It seems to me that anyone who is going to use a $2 word like supersede or idiosyncrasy should take the trouble to learn how to spell it.  While the same argument does not apply to "alright," I believe it is out of place in formal writing.

        I had to ask myself why I am so comfortable with these shibboleths when I have no trouble splitting infinitives or beginning a sentence with "hopefully."  My answer was that there can be a real linguistic value to splitting an infinitive or using "hopefully"; those constructions allow meanings that could not otherwise be communicated in the same number of words.  The only advantage gained by "alright," I've always supposed, is to save a letter and a space, which I consider too pedestrian to be a justification.  The unitary nature of "all right" I do not consider to be a good argument against writing it as two words; there are too many unitary terms that are written as two words to require citation.  However, if there is a real distinction in meaning between "all right" and "alright," as your example "Your answers are all right" suggests, then I suppose I will have to reconsider my position.

John Baker


-----Original Message-----
From: American Dialect Society [mailto:ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU]On Behalf
Of Arnold M. Zwicky
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 2:07 PM
To: ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: ahold


On Jun 13, 2005, at 9:31 AM, John Baker asks:

> ... What are your views on supercede and alright?

i generally correct "supercede" and "idiosyncracy", but i'm not
entirely sure this is a good use of my time and other people's.
especially since these two occur in the writing of highly educated
careful writers, including some linguists, and they aren't slips of
the pen.

on "alright", see MWDEU again.  i've totally given up on this one,
though i myself write "all right".  it's just one of my little quirks.

the situation with "alright" has gone so far that a great many people
perceive the spelling "all right" as the innovation -- and an
ignorant one at that.  several people have written me with the
suggestion that "all right" is in fact an eggcorn, a mistaken
reanalysis of the unitary "alright"!  and they can explain why
"alright" is phonologically, syntactically, and semantically a unit,
so should not be written as two words.  on the semantic side, they
point out that absolutely none of their uses of "alright" can be
paraphrased as "completely correct".  some even observe that they do
have the expression "all right" in sentences like "Your answers are
all right" 'All of your answers are right', but that this is
phonologically, syntactically, and semantically distinct from their
"alright"; note "Your answers are all, every one of them, right".
this is excellent reasoning, and at this point i'm not willing to
maintain that all these sensitive observations are irrelevant and
that the correct spelling is "all right", just because.

arnold (zwicky at csli.stanford.edu)