Brian Randall wrote:
On 1/19/07, The Wanderer <inverseparadox@comcast.net> wrote:
Quoting fixed - reordered and the appropriate level of >
indentation added. Please, even if you're going to top-post (bad as
that is), at least quote correctly.
As a brief aside, this is probably a major part of what caused your
comment to be dismissed (no one likes to be condescended to, and
there is no 'right' way to reply to e-mails on the FFML).
I did not intend to be condescending. I intended this as a sincere
request. (I honestly do not see any condescension in the above. It may
lack appropriate "please excuse me" disclaimers, but given how often I
write similar requests, I think it is understandable they have become
somewhat terse over time.) The fact that this is the FFML has nothing to
do with it; the same standard applies to all plain-text E-mails, and
many other things besides. I make the same request, or some form of it,
virtually every time I have to re-order or otherwise fix quotation in
E-mail or on Usenet.
I frankly do not and did not expect the request to bear much fruit, but
making the request - which, from my side, feels like more of a hopeless
plea - helps make the effort I expend in correcting the quotation by
hand feel like less of an aggravating waste.
Mark Doherty wrote:
Brian Randall <durandall@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm still working on my degree. But:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/alright
Generally considered 'informal' writing, and not advisable for
'edited works'. Draw your own conclusions; though I'm
personally inclined to say that it's fine as-is, especially
since it's in dialogue, which naturally grants a degree of
latitude.
Yes, that's exactly it. If I was using alright in descriptive
portion, I'd change it. But in dialogue, it's fine - it's the
same as using slang or other informal words (ie, don't use it
anywhere but in conversation portions).
I disagree sharply.
I allow considerable latitude for grammar and colloquialism in
dialogue - but "alright" vs. "all right" is not a matter of grammar
but of *spelling*; both are pronounced the same, and if the
sentence were spoken aloud no one would notice the difference. I
consider it horribly unprofessional in any form of writing; its
presence in an otherwise good and well-polished story would
constitute an eyesore, a definite break in the comfortable flow of
the story - the more so because there are fair odds that the writer
does not merely not care but actually thinks that the usage is
acceptable.
The context of "dialogue" does not automatically excuse any error
the author may want it to...
Can you please reconcile this against the fact that 'alright' was
spelled correctly according to the Oxford English Dictionary? I'm
just curious.
...I don't see the citation of that, even having followed the
Merriam-Webster link.
However, if I had to so reconcile, I would do it with the fact that
dictionaries are by nature and necessity descriptivist; they describe
the way the language appears to be used, they do not attempt to
prescribe the way it should be used. The latter is not the province of
dictionaries - it is the job of every conscientious speaker of the
language.
To paraphrase the way a family friend once put it in a discussion of
this subject: Languages change and evolve, inevitably, and that is as it
should be - but it is our job, every one of us, to fight each individual
change as hard as we can.
Otherwise, you were more than a bit overbearing in your approach
here, which I think is the rest of what caused your commentary to be
dismissed. Especially since 'alright' is considered acceptable use
at this point.
Not in the views of many people, of whom I am one.
I usually try to be polite and to consider all sides, whether or not I
agree with them, but I can see nothing to support the use of "alright"
as anything other than an unfortunate misspelling - and I rather doubt
that anything less than a forceful objection would have gotten the least
reaction.
I would almost certainly have expressed myself differently if it had not
appeared when I began that the author's mind was already made up.
You may note also that even as it was, most of the statements I made
were about *me* and my opinion of the usage, not about the usage itself;
only one was about anyone else, the collective "everyone" (in the form
of "no one").
English grows and changes as a language, as little as we may like it.
We're not the French, and we don't have a council to preserve our
language from outside influences.
Nor should we. Central authority is neither effective nor necessary in
regulating language.
In any case, how but by objecting vociferously to usage which we
consider inappropriate (and, naturally, employing appropriate usage
ourselves) are we to push back against the spread of such usage?
This is growing offtopic. I will make at most one more reply, or (if
appropriate) layer of replies, onlist in this thread. In the unlikely
event that anyone wishes to continue the discussion, they may contact me
privately - though please do *not* send a given E-mail both to me and to
the mailing list.