Your opinion is duly noted.
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.
Mark Doherty wrote:
Brian Randall wrote:
On 1/18/07, Jason Liao wrote:
Mars nodded. She hesitated, then asked "Are you sure you're
alright?"
all right?
Actually, I think alright has become an acceptable spelling
nowadays in more places. But I think it's still considered
'incorrect'. Hmm...
"Is there an English PhD on the list?"
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*; boht 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 cntext of "dialogue" does not automatically excuse any error the
author may want it to...