Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

Me, I would try to avoid it in narrative, but use it in dialog. I know plenty of real people who use it in speech frequently.

I don't understand this. "Alright" and "all right" are pronounced exactly the same. It's simply the way they're spelled. So it makes no difference if it's dialogue. It's spelling, not dialect.

'all right' and 'alright' are pronounced indistinguishably,

Not in the UK - there's a discernible gap between 'all' and 'right'.

In some regions 'alright' is the modern form of greeting, to be answered in turn with 'alright'. The 'l' is so lightly pronounced that it often sounds like 'awright'.

AJ

Not in the UK - there's a discernible gap between 'all' and 'right'.

Then why did Jeff Lynne call his song "Alright"?

Looking at music, I see a lot of songs called "Alright", from everybody from Kriss-Kross and Twista, to Janet Jackson, Darius Rucker, and Ami Suzuki.

This again to me is showing simply that our language is trying to change, but some are wanting to fight that natural change.

I just listened to several songs with that word in the title, specifically the Kenny Loggins one (one of my favorites for decades). And I can hear that they are singing "Alright", not "all right". Especially since Kenny tends to have a very "rocking" staccato way of singing, making almost every word crisp and distinct. But when he sings "I'm Alright", it is obvious there is no break at all, he is singing it as a single word.

Then why did Jeff Lynne call his song "Alright"?

No one ever accused those involved in the music industry as being great in the use of the English language.

No one ever accused those involved in the music industry as being great in the use of the English language.

Fair enough. But also they are ones I would look to much more readily for the future evolution of our language than I would to academia.

I always find it strange how so many refuse to recognize that we humans, and our languages are still evolving. Words still get developed and meanings change all the time. Want to have fun? Look in a dictionary from around 1940 or before and look up "computer". It means something vastly different than it does today. As has the definition of "phone" in the last 20 years or so.

they are ones I would look to much more readily for the future evolution of our language than I would to academia.

Since the concept of language is to allow the communication of ideas and concepts in a way that both sides understand what's going on, it's good for any change to the meaning of words and the use of words in a language to be slow and extremely well documented.

However, going to musicians being the ones to change the language, can you imagine what a political meeting would be like with one group speaking hip-hop, another speaking gangsta, and a third speaking formal English. Even when they agreed with each other no one would ever really be sure they did.

Then why did Jeff Lynne call his song "Alright"?

I don't understand. I was disputing the claim that there's no difference in pronunciation between 'all right' and 'alright'. What does a single usage instance have to do with the two pronunciations?

AJ

Wrong.

'all right' and 'alright' are pronounced indistinguishably, just like when someone says "should've" it sounds like they said "should of" but you really should use the correct version for what they said, even if the character doesn't realize it.

No, they are not indistinguishable. Now they can be, of it can be very obvious they are very different, depending on who is speaking.

Now I specifically listed Mark Twain for a reason. If he was to follow what you suggest, everything in the following quote would have been lost.

Yes. You know that one-laigged n***** dat belongs to old Misto Brandish? Well, he sot up a bank, en say anybody dat put in a dollar would git fo' dollars mo' at de en' er de year.

That is the trick of accurately putting in a dialect, if you want the reader to be able to hear it in their head as intended. And I know I have had more than one try to "correct" me when I had characters speak in a similar manner.

And I also on a linguistic side find it unnatural and stupid to fight when our language tries to shift. In the past, our language changed constantly. New words being invented, new definitions of words even. But only in the last century or so have you had this concept of what should and should not be used taken such a strong hold.

Just go to the South, and try to tell them that "Y'all" ain't "proper" and should not be used. And even worse is "all y'all". And any southerner knows that "you all" and "y'all" is not pronounced in anywhere near the same way.

Others may not detect it, but those that live there can. And the same with the word in question that started this. After all, it is not even new.

40 years ago, Kenny Loggins had a hit song called "I'm Alright". And there is more than enough evidence that in the last half-century or more that "alright" has morphed it's own definition, separate from the source "all right".

I myself would pronounce and use them very differently, because I see them and say them differently. "All right, you are correct, I see that now," is how I would say and spell the first way. And because I have had speech training I tend to be very careful enunciating because of having too overcome a speech impediment.

But if I was to say "Yea, I'm feeling alright, just leave me alone," I would say that very differently. In fact, if I was writing it as a dialect how I would actually say it, that would put in "feelin", because I tend to drop the "G" sound at the end. And also use for the first contraction "I'ma". So that would have started "Yea, I'ma feelin alright".

Now maybe I am simply more sensitive to actually hearing dialects. Having lived in almost all areas of the country, I can pick them up and even mimic these differences. I very much can pick up the "Southern California" accent, and can even now pick up the "Northern California" accent. As well as the one I used in Idaho. And can tell the difference between North Carolina and Alabama.

But do not make the mistake of thinking that they are indistinguishable. You may not be able to tell the difference, but that does not mean others can not tell the difference.

Of course, we can always just drop all dialects and regional accents, and force everybody to write and use the Mid-Atlantic Accent.

Kenny Loggins had a hit song called "I'm Alright". And there is more than enough evidence that in the last half-century or more that "alright" has morphed it's own definition, separate from the source "all right".

Well, Bob Dylan had a song called "Lay Lady Lay." That doesn't mean it's proper grammar.

As to "there is more than enough evidence that in the last half-century or more that "alright" has morphed it's own definition, separate from the source "all right"." Not according to ngram: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?smoothing=3&corpus=26&content=alright%2C+all+right&year_end=2019&year_start=1800&direct_url=t1%3B%2Calright%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Call%20right%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Calright%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Call%20right%3B%2Cc0

According to ngram, it's only recently that "alright" is being used. And nowhere near "all right." I believe "alright" will someday become standard, but it isn't today.

According to ngram, it's only recently that "alright" is being used. And nowhere near "all right." I believe "alright" will someday become standard, but it isn't today.

When searching in books. Not exactly a real look, but OK.

And it really is a questionable result, to be honest. Out of curiosity I plugged in another such word-words. And got a result not all that different.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?smoothing=3&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&content=sometime%2Csome+time&direct_url=t1%3B%2Csometime%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csome%20time%3B%2Cc0

"Sometime" started in the exact same way. It evolved it's own meaning from the original source, of "some time". Once again, this is simply the evolution of language. Some people however just seem to think they can stop any change they do not like.

And "sometime" does now enjoy a distinct definition that is different than that of "some time".

"I sat to wait for the bus, and realized some time had passed."

"I told my wife that sometime we would have to go dancing again."

Just swap the 2 in each sentence, and try to tell me they read the same way when reversed. This is no different.

"Sometime" started in the exact same way. It evolved it's own meaning from the original source, of "some time".

I don't think so. According to dictionary.com, "ORIGIN OF SOMETIME
Middle English word dating back to 1250–1300"

And according to Grammarly, they have different meaning:

Sometime, Sometimes, and Some Time

Sometime means "at some point."

As an adjective, sometime also means "former."

Some time means "a period of time"—usually a long period of time.

Sometimes means "occasionally."

I don't think so. According to dictionary.com, "ORIGIN OF SOMETIME
Middle English word dating back to 1250–1300"

Exactly. And "Alright" has also taken new meaning as well. Much more of a sense of fulfillment and well being, rather than simply there is nothing wrong.

And all you are doing is showing over and over how words are developed and change. "Sometime" did come from "some time", or are you doubting that? And the same is true of "Alright" and "all right". So what, does a change in language have to be hundreds of years old in order to be accepted or something?

And this is actually likely a holdout from the Germanic roots of our language. The German languages tend much more towards being compounded than most of the Romance languages do. And also gives us a great many others. Like housewife, basketball, lawsuit, airport, wallpaper, and moonwalk.

Over 30 years ago, Robert MacNeil did a great book and documentary series called "The Story of English". And in it he goes through how it changed, and even future changes expected.

"Sometime" did come from "some time", or are you doubting that?

I am. That was the reason for my post. I can't find anywhere that says "sometime" evolved from "some time." That's why I quoted the origin of the word "sometime."

The two mean different things.

Whereas "all right" and "alright" mean the same (in most cases), it's just that "alright" isn't accepted yet as the correct spelling. I believe it will be someday, but until then I'll spell it the approved way. Why not? What do you have to lose spelling it as "all right"?

While it's uncommon, your on ngram check has "alright" in use as far back as 1800. What does it take?

I guess the dictionaries. But in my case, the Chicago Manual of Style.

I look at it this way. Why not spell it the approved way?

And if you want to go by CMOS, that's fine for you. It's not right for you to insist that everyone else follow it. And that's exactly what you are doing when you say X is wrong for everyone because CMOS says it's wrong.

First, I'm not insisting everyone do it my way. Why do I keep getting those comments? It must be the way I post. I'm giving my opinion and I try to back up my opinion.

And I said the AP Style Guide also says "alright" is wrong. My guess is none of the style guides say "alright" is correct. And none of the dictionaries.

The OP asked if you (collectively) would point it out to the author and let them decide. I said I would and also said I would never use "alright." After that, in later posts, I explained why. Isn't that what you ask for? An explanation.

And that's exactly what you are doing when you say X is wrong for everyone because CMOS says it's wrong.

I remember the claim that CMOS says you should never use personal pronouns for animals.

I think it's use for fiction should be regarded with suspicion.

'Alright' is going to become the more common spelling. If you use it, you are future-proofing your story.

Personally I use both, employing the more formal 'all right' for emphasis. Alright?

AJ

I remember the claim that CMOS says you should never use personal pronouns for animals.

I think CMoS said you use personal pronouns when there's a relationship with the animal. In my novel, the hero refers to his horse as "he."

I think CMoS said you use personal pronouns when there's a relationship with the animal.

I think you're right. But CMoS is wrong to apply that to fiction.

AJ

I should have said this earlier, but I think the context of your story would make "all right" preferable - the historical nature implies more formal linguistics. (For the same reason, you might like to go easy on the contractions.)

But I reserve the right to continue using "alright" where appropriate in my own stories.

AJ

No, I'm not sure I have seen that instance.

I have noticed it across many stories. I tend to read really long stories and it seems like it always gets used instead of all right, whether it is is exposition or dialog. Even in dialog, although I would be more lenient, the author is pretty much writing what the ear would hear and alright sounds pretty much like all right to me. So I am thinking the author probably doesn't know any better. Having it slide by a second person, the editor, makes it two people who don't know. Or two people who want to support the evolution of language, which the use of alright seems like a poor cause to hang one's hat upon.

A friend gave me a copy of his recently (Amazon) published novel and asked for feedback. He was throwing it around and was surprised when I gave him a few notes. He was not aware it was 'incorrect'.

From all the back and forth, it does see m a bit controversial. After reading everything, I have become convinced to not care as much when I see alright. I can accept it as synonymous with okay. But then I get to thinking if all right was substituted for where alright is used to mean okay, like at the beginning of a sentence (where I see a majority of its use) then it is actually not meaning everything is okay. It is more like an interjection, such as "oh well". It is more like the person is declaring what went before is past, such as if the sentence began with "Fine," and then proceeded. So uses at the beginning of a sentence seem to be like the user is metaphorically putting their foot down on a point, not neccessarily that everything is ok. In those instances, even though alright, by advocates definition, means similar to "okay". all right also has the same meaning. If the meaning is the same, the I think the standard should be used.

I'm not sure if I explained that so it makes sense, so have a little mercy when you pick it apart. Basically, if it is used as something of an interjection, then all right still gets my vote for correct. I can accept alright being a synonym for okay, but not when okay is just being used as an interjection, since all right does the same thing.

Using music to justify what is acceptable is a bit absurd, especially when the music is trying to be edgy or controversial to provoke an emotion. I think musicians intentionally abuse and misuse language. If we are to accept lyrics and song titles as the basis for language, then civilization is in trouble. All right, that may be a bit harsh. (Notice all right looks and sounds fine and does the same thing there as alright does.)

numerals may not look right (remember in some typeface, 1 and l are identical)

This is going to show my age, but I had something similar many decades ago.

I took a programming course in the late 1970's, and this involved writing your code on these 80 column sheets with a box for each letter. And we were taught things like the "slashed 0" and putting a line through the stalk of the numbers 1 and 7, to prevent them from being confused for letters.

One of the requirements for the course was also to take typing, so I took that also. And we were taught in the course to substitute the letter L for 1 (and even upper case i), and the letter O for 0.

Which caused problems about a month in when we were instructed to hand off our program sheets to the advanced typing class, as they were learning keypunch machines. We would pick up our stack of cards, and every single program we tried to run from them failed.

After that, I never turned in my sheets and did the keypunching myself. And even over a month later the typists would still make these same mistakes.

One of my classmates had a bug it took her forever to figure out. The typist had done the "L for i" swap, so the integer command (INT) came out "LNT".

I often wonder if they still teach typing in school anymore. I find it hard to imagine not walking through the hall of a school and not hearing the chatter of a few dozen Selectric typewriters.

So one argument for using 9 instead of nine is the one you gave - it uses less space. Are they logical arguments FOR using nine instead of 9?

A style guide's purpose is to have consistency. That's all.

I believe the AP Style guide's decision has to do with newspaper space. "9" takes up less space than "nine." But "yo" takes up less space than "year-old." They could have made their standard "9-yo" but they didn't.

I have no idea why a style guide chooses what they do.

Most challenging? Tartan paint. :)

That's a real bugger to paint, as keeping the lines straight in the pin stripes is finicky work.

non-word 'alright'

I don't see how anyone can declare it a non-word since it is a word and it's in reasonably widespread usage. (It's in 1000 SOL stories.)

It's clear the conservatives hate it, but it's listed as a word in my 20yo deskside dictionary (although with the qualification that some authorities forbid it in formal usage) so it really, really, definitely is a word.

AJ

The word 'xanthic' is most definitely a word, yet appears in only a single story on SoL.

Oddly enough, xanthic isn't listed in my 20yo deskside dictionary as a valid word.

Is there any threshold SOL story usage count that would be enough to convince you a word has been accepted?

ETA - there's a single 'xanthic' SciFi story not no Finestories.

AJ

Overall I tend to agree with Earnest, in as much as language has to be comprised of words that are commonly understood to have a given meaning. If you use words that the majority don't understand the meaning of, then you are effectively writing in code.

This is where "knowing your audience" comes into play.

I have written guides for hardcore computer techs, and I have written guides for complete novices. And I remember to which group I am addressing whenever I write something like that out.

The same with my writing here. I quite often "dumb down" things, because my target group is not any one group, but everybody. Either that, or I throw such in very infrequently with the definition, so that if I bring it up again it is quickly understood in the future.

Myself, I hear "Xanthic", and immediately think of Piers Anthony.

I suggest you contact them and point out their error.

It's not necessarily an error. I reckon only about 10% of actual English words are covered by a typical dictionary. I'm pretty sure than 'xanthic' isn't a new kid on the block, so it's likely the dictionary compilers found too few instances of recent use to justify placing it above their cutoff.

AJ

Checck your dictionary for cyanic, violaceus, and scarlatinus.

'cyanic' only occurs in conjunction with 'acid'.

'violaceus' isn't present, but 'violaceous' is.

'scarlatinus' isn't present.

AJ

violaceus - violet

FWIW, all the popular internet dictionaries eg Merriam Webster match mine (from the Oxford stable) in having 'violaceous' but not 'violaceus'.

yourdictionary.com has both, with its definition of 'violaceus' marrying up with my dictionary's definition of 'violaceous', and it's definition of 'violaceous' being a subset.

I guess it shows that rarely used words have more definition volatility across the dictionary range.

AJ

It's in 1000 SOL stories.

The three zeros at the end made me suspicious so I had a play. 1000 is a site search limit, so 'alright' is almost (all most?) certainly in rather more than 1000 SOL stories.

AJ

I don't see how anyone can declare it a non-word

Grammar Girl does with: "At the top of the show I told you that one of the words isn't a real word." Here's the whole thing:

We've now come to the third pair of words. At the top of the show I told you that one of the words isn't a real word. Is it "all right" as two words or "alright" as one word? Well, as grammarian Bill Walsh puts it in his book Lapsing Into a Comma, "We word nerds have known since second grade that alright is not all right" (4). He was talking about "alright" as one word. It's not OK.

Another style guide (5) agrees, saying that "alright" (one word) is a misspelling of "all right" (two words), which means "adequate," "permissible," or "satisfactory." So you might hear the two-word phrase in sentences such as these: "His singing was just all right" or "Is it all right if I wait outside?"

It seems pretty simple: go ahead and use "all right" as two words, and stay away from "alright" as one word. But the esteemed Brian Garner (6) notes that "alright" as one word "may be gaining a shadowy acceptance in British English." And the American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style (7) seems to contradict itself. It states that "alright" as one word "has never been accepted as standard" but it then goes on to explain that "all right" as two words and "alright" as one word have two distinct meanings. It gives the example of the sentence "The figures are all right." When you use "all right" as two words, the sentence means "the figures are all accurate." When you write "The figures are alright," with "alright" as one word, this source explains that the sentence means "the figures are satisfactory." I'm not sure what to make of this contradiction. The many other grammar sources I checked, including a large dictionary, reject "alright" as one word. Regular listeners of this show know that language is always in flux, so perhaps "alright" as one word is gaining a small footing.

By the way, the style guide she referenced is: (5) Venolia, Jan. Write Right. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press, 2001, p. 126.

Thank you.

AJ

While I don't stress over the use of the non-word 'alright' when others use it

If a collection of letters (or sounds) communicates what the author or speaker intend, I daresay it's a word, dictionaries (which are 'point-in-time') to the contrary notwithstanding.

Should you use 'new' or 'invented' words in formal speech? Probably not (though even there, sometimes you should).

There is nothing "new" about "alright".

I should have included 'informal' in my list (i.e. 'new', 'invented', or informal words.

Should you use 'new' or 'invented' words in formal speech? Probably not (though even there, sometimes you should).

Well, had better scrub your vocabulary then.

Robotics, Positronic, Videophone, those and dozens more were actually invented by 1 person in the last century. As are a huge number of others. Beep, blurb, debunk, litterbug, meme, nerd, quark, tween, the list is literally endless.

And good luck ever describing technology today without using "made up" words. In the world of IT, quite often a large part of our vocabulary is less than 25 years old (but starting to age rapidly as the progress of the industry slows). And another big chunk are words we have grabbed and repurposed from other sources. Like "firewall".

And of course you have the curious now archaic terms, which I laugh at. After all, anybody in IT can tell you a "Cable MODEM" is about as nonsensical as a "hot water heater". Yet people still use the term. Never mind that such an object never really existed (technically they are bridges or just outright routers - they modulate and demodulate nothing).

Well, had better scrub your vocabulary then.

What part of 'sometimes you should' did you miss?

What part of 'sometimes you should' did you miss?

I did not. It was just pointing out that a huge number of words that are "new and created" people really do not know. Like Robotics and beep. Most have absolutely no idea that both were invented by 20th century science fiction authors.

And I wonder if those saying that "alright" should never be used because it dates back only a few hundred years would also say the same thing about "beep", which is less than 70 years old.

It was just pointing out that a huge number of words that are "new and created" people really do not know. Like Robotics and beep.

Keep in mind that "alright" is not a new word or an invented word. It's a new spelling of an existing word (actually a two-word combo).

Many people spell "a lot" as "alot." Searching on SOL, there are 277 files with "alot". That doesn't make it right.

Will you please at least stop insisting that "alright" is somehow new?

I meant new in response to the argument that new words are created all the time, like robotics. I was trying to say "alright" is not a new/invented word.

But then you tacked on this:

It's a new spelling of an existing word (actually a two-word combo).

I did. You're right.

I decided to play around with the ngram

For the fun of it, I did an ngram search for "alot." (my browser keeps adding a space that I have to remove.)

It's been around for a long time. It actually spiked in the 1970s and fell rapidly in 2004. So just because it's been used, doesn't make it correct.

But I'll say it again, I don't care if others use "alright." Use "alot" too if you want.

Should you use 'new' or 'invented' words in formal speech? Probably not (though even there, sometimes you should).

Given the amount of new jargon I've invented for science fiction stories, I think there's a clear firebreak between fiction and formal speech.

Actually, I've invented some new jargon to do with my research - both a privilege and drawback of breaking new ground. In a century's time, when they're toppling statues of me for being a meat eater (gasp!), will they also be mocking the terminology I invented?

AJ

because I know if I do I'll end up having to waste too much time in answering messages and emails about the use of the word

Yep, after being beat up by you, I now use "dived" and not "dove."

I recently attended a lovely wedding where at the end they released a flock of diveds.

LOL

'Dove' would be appropriate in dialog, dialectic narrative, and aviaries.

There'll be bluebirds over
The white cliffs of Divedr

AJ

One such variation that's been mentioned before is the use of the word decimate when the word devastate should be used. Decimate was taken into English from Latin with its exact and specific meaning many centuries ago, but people now say it can be properly used in place of devastate.

In this I do tend to agree. It is only appropriate if in a group of 10, 9 have to beat the remaining one to death.

However, it does make me curious. I think I am going to have to do a search to see if I can find any defenestration erotica out there.

Lets discuss upright versus up right.

That's not the same. The Grammar Girl article addressed 3 pairs of words, "all right/alright" being the 3rd. The other two are:

all together and altogether
all ready and already

Those pairs of words have different meanings, not just different spellings.

Saying tall guys are better at Basketball may be racist if most of the tall guys are of a particular race.

I think it was Lebron James who, when was asked a question, said something like "Baseball is a white man's game." Is that racist? What if a white guy said that basketball is a black man's game? (btw, there are a lot of Latino names in baseball for it to be a white man's game.)

I've heard many black people lately start a sentence with "My people…" Racist? If a white person said that he would be called a white supremacist.

I never realized how much racism still existed, and I hate it, but things have gone too far.

it's impossible as a matter of definition to be racist against whites.

Calling a white person a cracker is racist.

Washington (DC) NFL team is going to be the Washington Football team, Nothing red about it.

They're keeping red uniforms.

I thought the Seattle Seahawks were the Washington Football team. The name is only temporary anyway.

'white trash', and 'redneck' are acceptable.

That's because some whites call other whites that.

Only because they redefined 'white' to include hispanics. Somebody realized that whites would be a visible minority and didn't want them to accidentally qualify for government jobs.

No, because they defined a NEW word to replace 'Caucasian' which includes Hispanics, people from the Indian sub-continent, and others who are not Anglo-German-Norse-Rus.

The terms used now are about culture and national origin, not 'race' per se.

Racism is calling me an Indian, a term applied by white European immigrants due to the color of the skin of the first Natives they met. That's a twofer there, as it mixes us in with actual Indians from India.

And that is what you think, fine.

I happen to be Pottawatomie, and I prefer "Indian" over most of the other terms I heard used. I see nothing wrong with it, and am proud of my heritage.

But do not make the mistake that we all agree with you. Until a few months ago I lived at the edge of the 2 different Maidu reservations. And we frequently called each other "'skins". Yes, as in "Redskins". And never thought a damned thing wrong with it, or if anybody else did so long as it was not used in a negative manner.

Not all of us are as easily offended.

I lived at the edge of the 2 different Maidu reservations. And we frequently called each other "'skins". Yes, as in "Redskins". And never thought a damned thing wrong with it, or if anybody else did so long as it was not used in a negative manner.

Just looked up the origin of the term and found this:

The origin of the word "redskin" has long been disputed by linguists, Native American activists who consider it a slur and those who insist that the name of Washington's football team honors Indians rather than disparages them.

1769: The first unchallenged use of the word "redskin" occurs when a British lieutenant colonel translates a letter from an Indian chief promising safe passage if the officer visited his tribe in the Upper Mississippi Valley.

"I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself if you pity our women and our children; and, if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life," Chief Mosquito said in his letter, according to a 2005 study by Ives Goddard, the Smithsonian Institution's senior linguist emeritus.

Aug. 22, 1812: At a Washington reception for several Native Americans, President James Madison refers to Indians as "red people" or "my red children," prompting Little Osage Chief Sans Oreilles (No Ears) to voice his support for the administration: "I know the manners of the whites and the red skins." Then, Sioux Chief French Crow also pledged loyalty: "I am a red-skin,

July 20, 1815: After tangling with famed explorer-turned-Missouri Territory Gov. William Clark, Meskwaki Chief Black Thunder gives a speech that was printed in the Western Journal in St. Louis. "I turn to all," the chief is reported as saying, "red skins and white skins, and challenge an accusation against me."

But then…

Sept. 25, 1863: The Winona Daily Republican in Minnesota features an announcement that uses the term "redskin" as a pejorative: "The State reward for dead Indians has been increased to $200 for every red-skin sent to Purgatory. This sum is more than the dead bodies of all the Indians east of the Red River are worth."

1898: Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines "redskin" as "often contemptuous."

Myself, I always saw it as an honor. Nobody picks a mascot that is seen as weak and stupid. The mascot of my High School was the "Braves", and in order to be the official mascot the applicant had to be at least 1/4 Indian. This was an actual requirement 40 years ago.

And there were normally at least a dozen applicants fighting for the right to portray the mascot at games.

And last year for some stupid reason they decided to change the name from "Braves" to "Brave". Decades of tradition and people of that heritage fighting to be the symbol of that mascot wiped away.

And for all the screams about removing Indians as mascots, I have yet to hear a single peep out of the name "The Fighting Irish". Which always struck me as ironic, as that one really does sound offensive at face value and not just possibly implied to some.

And I still remember the lawsuit a decade or so back, when an actual school on an Indian Reservation was forced to change their mascot from "Warriors". Basically telling them they were not allowed to honor their own heritage.

Myself, I find the victim culture and people looking to be offended as offensive. Like a restaurant chain that was largely put out of business, and the last remaining one having to change it's name recently. It was named after the founders, Sam Battistone Sr. and Newell Bohnett. And taking their names, they called it "Sambo's". And they did use the story as part of their identity, but in the true original form.

Where Sambo was from India. Which actually makes sense, as making him "black" made absolutely no sense as Tigers are native to SE Asia, not Africa. And the original author (Helen Bannerman) was Scottish, but lived in India for 30 years. And is mostly famous for transcribing Indian folk tales and changing them for a European audience.

And her choice of placing "Black" in front of the names was Indian symbolism, not race. Like in many cultures, black is seen as "evil". But it is often displayed as a way to keep evil away. Displaying a negative color can cause the influence to pass along, thinking it is already affected. And in all 10 of the stories she wrote, the characters were constantly at struggle with evil animals.

I wonder if the name of Edward of Woodstock could be struck. Son of Edward III and father of Richard II, he is known to most as "The Black Prince".

And it is only a matter of time before chess, checkers, and playing cards are banned for being "racist".

And it is only a matter of time before chess, checkers, and playing cards are banned for being "racist".

Chess has already been attacked as racist because 'white' has an advantage over 'black'. Cis-privilege, no doubt.

AJ

Chess has already been attacked as racist because 'white' has an advantage over 'black'. Cis-privilege, no doubt.

One of the funniest skits I've ever seen was on an HBO comedy show (I think it was Not Necessarily the News) and developed as follows:

You see a chess board, and a white hand moving a white piece, while a black man sits sweating. The white hand moves another piece (without an intervening move by black). That continues and you hear the announcer's voice - "You're at the chess board, and your opponent makes a move, and another move, and another, but there's nothing you can do, because when you're black, it's never your move in South African Rules Chess!"

I laughed so hard I cried.

It perfectly skewered Apartheid while being hilariously funny. Showing that skit now would likely cause a certain segment of the population to lose their minds. Being 'woke' seems to include complete humor impairment.

There are few non-white referees in British football and, IIRC, only one at anything like the top level. Referee training courses are easy to get on but there's an absence particularly of black applicants. One solution mooted is to have blacks-only referee training courses.

So the answer is to introduce Apartheid, apparently :-(

AJ

So the answer is to introduce Apartheid, apparently :-(

Segregation seems to be the standard answer from many in the 'woke' crowd, whether it's by race or biological gender, or whatever. Fundamentally betraying the entire purpose of both the women's rights and civil rights movements, where content of character and ability trumped skin color and biological gender.

But it's not just that kind of segregation - it's 'safe spaces' so you don't have to encounter anyone who doesn't agree with you.

It was a job interview with word association. The first time I ever heard the word Honky.

I once came across the word Honky in that situation, and got a weird look from the interviewer when my immediate reply was Tonk. Later I asked them about that, and it was the first time they'd had that response from someone, nor did they know where I got it from. I can thank my parents for a really varied musical background.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honky-tonk

A) Honky-tonk is actually quite a well known term in this part of the world

Not so much well known here in Australia, especially by those born after 1940, as was the interviewer.

There was a brilliant SNL skit, Chevy Chase and Richard Pryor... censors would never allow it now. Both of them tossing racial slurs.

There was also a rather funny one by the second team, with Eddie Murphy. But it also makes me curious if the reaction of many would be the same if it was say Joe Piscopo doing the reverse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_LeJfn_qW0

At least the Mighty Ducks threw on the modifier "mighty".

They aren't just ducks, they are "mighty" ducks. :)

That came about when Disney sold the team and they were no longer meant to promote the animated show.

Of course, then we have 'Penguins which aren't exactly fierce (and I'm a huge Penguins fan).

Yeah, but that and the Mighty Ducks are Hockey. You run out of Arctic predators pretty quickly. How much sense would it make to name a Hockey team for a tropical and/or desert predator?

Phoenix Coyotes?
Florida Panthers?
San Jose Sharks?
Nashville Predators? (Saber-tooth lion)
Seattle Kraken (expansion team this year)?

:-)

Who decided it was a good idea to have a krak en the ice...?

Already being called the 'Krak-heads' and derided as the 'Seattle Karens'.

'Seattle Karens'

Is a Seattle 'Karen' the same as a social media 'Karen' - someone who's not allowed an opinion because they're a middle-aged white woman?

AJ

Is a Seattle 'Karen' the same as a social media 'Karen' - someone who's not allowed an opinion because they're a middle-aged white woman?

That's the implied insult, yes. :-)

Yeah, but that and the Mighty Ducks are Hockey. You run out of Arctic predators pretty quickly. How much sense would it make to name a Hockey team for a tropical and/or desert predator?

*grins*

Antarctic. Hence the irony of the classic cartoon series with a penguin (south pole) and a walrus (north pole).

But there are a lot of arctic predators. Polar Bears, Kodiak Bears, Walrus, Orca, some Leopards, the Siberian Tiger, and plenty of others. Including of course wolves.

Antarctic. Hence the irony of the classic cartoon series with a penguin (south pole) and a walrus (north pole).

Sh-t! I missed that, and I'm usually pedantic about it being a fan of Penguins and penguins! :-)

Of course, then we have 'Penguins which aren't exactly fierce (and I'm a huge Penguins fan).

Many English football teams have bird-related nicknames. Off the top of my head:

West Bromwich Albion - Throstles
Newcastle United - Magpies
Exeter City - Magpies
Norwich City - Canaries
Swindon Town - Robins
Crystal Palace - Eagles
Cardiff City - Bluebirds
Sheffield Wednesday - Owls
Swansea City - Swans

AJ

Go check out Toledo's minor league team.

Don't go try and tell Max Klinger they are weak or stupid.

Jamie Farr really is from Toledo, and was always trying to throw in references to his home town as his most famous character.

Jamie Farr really is from Toledo, and was always trying to throw in references to his home town as his most famous character.

I meet Jameel Farah at Saint George Antiochian Church in Toledo, where he was a member. He was a VERY big promoter of Toledo, and an all-around nice guy.

Aylesbury United Football Club's nickname is the Ducks.

Never heard of them? That's because they're not so mighty ;-)

ETA They're probably most famous for their goal celebrations. They get on their knees (Duck Lives Matter) and duck-walk towards the corner flag. That's something ice hockeyzens won't do!

AJ

...just a soccer team

Football is a world religion, you heathen!

AJ

I wouldn't think the NFL is quite a religion... And how did we get on this topic from soccer?

Only North Americans would call a game where it is illegal to advance the ball with your feet, 'football'! In gridiron, except for field goals and points after touchdown (though you are no longer required to actually touch the ball down), you may only use your feet to give the ball to the other team (though in certain circumstances, you can recover it yourself).

Of course, watching certain Association Football sides play, one could say the same thing - they only use their feet to give the ball to the other side!

In gridiron, there are two ways to advance the "ball", throw it, or have someone run carrying it. I would argue, that in the latter case, you are in fact advancing the "ball" with your feet.

Sigh. Directed or propelled by your feet.

I would rather object to calling something decidedly not spherical a ball.

Testicles!

AJ

Testicles are roughly spherical.

They're even less roughly egg-shaped.

AJ

still a lot closer to spherical than a regulation football

I'd rate it halfway.

But every biological man should be aware of the shape of his own testicles from regularly feeling them. It should be as frequent an event as women examining their breasts for unusual sensations or changes, and for the same reason.

AJ

I worked with Dr. King's SCLC associates daily all thru the 1970's. I never knew Dr. King, of course, but I can tell you that Dr. Lowery, Ralph Abernathy, Hosea Williams, and John Lewis all knew first hand what racism is. They went out of their way to avoid returning the racism they had experienced all their lives. I have a huge amount of respect for those men, none whatsoever for anyone who believes the nonsense quoted above.

Orthodox bishops marched with King, et al, and taught their flocks that it was time to end racism once and for all, and they refused to stand silently by. They agreed with those men you mentioned, and to a man, they were 'white' (of Greek, Arab, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, etc) by the standards of the day.

they're all mostly from the Dominican, or Cuba, or Puerto Rico.

A lot from Venezuela. And let's not forget the Asian ones.

I think it was Lebron James who, when was asked a question, said something like "Baseball is a white man's game." Is that racist? What if a white guy said that basketball is a black man's game? (btw, there are a lot of Latino names in baseball for it to be a white man's game.)

The NHL is a white-man's game. 50% of the new players this year are European (mostly Sweden, Finland, and Russia), around 35% Canadian, and 15% from the US (rough numbers from memory).

But blaming the NHL for that makes no sense, as they can only draw from the pool of players, which is dominated by Canadians and northern-Europeans.

The NHL is a white-man's game. 50% of the new players this year are European (mostly Sweden, Finland, and Russia), around 35% Canadian,

That's how much I know about the NHL. I would have said 90% of the players were from Canada.

And there have been black players in the NHL. Remember, the Underground Railroad sent escaped slaves to Canada. Some stayed. And since all Canadians play hockey...

Swedes, too...Johnny Oduya (Kenyan Father, Swedish mother) who used to play for the Black Hawks. Others in the league - PK Subban (Jamaican Father), Dustin Byfuglien (African, Norwegian/Swedish), et al.

Grant Fuhr is biracial and was the first black to win the Stanley Cup and first to be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.

But there are not a lot of blacks in the league.

But that's partly economics. Hockey is one of the most expensive sports to be involved in.

As the father of a goalie, I can confirm that statement.

But blaming the NHL for that makes no sense, as they can only draw from the pool of players, which is dominated by Canadians and northern-Europeans.

It is like that in many sports. Golf, ice skating, swimming, skiing, the list just goes on and on.

I actually caught a speech on the radio a few years ago, and the person was actually saying that all of those sports were "racist", and were fighting hard to keep blacks from participating, out of fear they would dominate them because they were of course superior athletes.

And shaking my head in despair as he was so honestly giving one of the most racist speeches I had ever heard in my life. And it did not help when the talking heads came on and agreed with his statements.

Nerds are mostly white may be racist.

The sad thing, is that some actually believe that to be true.

Just earlier this year, it was announced that Dungeons and Dragons is being edited, because of multiple articles that stated it was racist. Which when I first read thought it was both silly as well as sad.

That somehow something that millions have enjoyed for decades without any thought of race was suddenly "bad" in the minds of those who were "woke", and that the publishers felt they had to make changes in order to appease them.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dungeons-and-dragons-diversity-evil-races_n_5ef3b7cac5b643f5b22eb22a?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAB5I-Z7tKVAeSKrjNdTPUYCJP4NUcMbdPdVuq3qDXzELOhp-KuOR53SLWKBPzol41-YolTVtN7BdLn1OEypyqnsZNleodPj7fouJiWhf7iof8Odsfn6r7o7YWVSUrkjM7o2JoJ6ZYnsNS0pR9HdsbXHDub7wlEfJGrp5FC2ck81h

Even reading this again made me shake my head in despair. Going on about how Drow Elves are "racist", as they are black of skin and obviously meant to imply black is "evil", as most (white skinned) elves are "good".

Never mind that they are actually inspired by "trow", an ancient Scottish word for evil spirits, and the evil "Dark Elves" of ancient Norse mythology.

There are many magnificent dwellings. One is there called Alfheim. There dwell the folk that are called light-elves; but the dark-elves dwell down in the earth, and they are unlike the light-elves in appearance, but much more so in deeds. The light-elves are fairer than the sun to look upon, but the dark-elves are blacker than pitch.

Prose Edda, paragraph 78, circa early 13th century.

I guess we had better go and scrub every reference to Norse mythology and the Thor comic books, all obviously being "racist".

I wonder why European Americans (aka whites) when they get badly sunburned aren't called "red skins"?

There must be a blistering reason for that.

On the subject of 'alright v. all right', Switch Blayde stated that according to ngram

Here's the ngrams chart:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=all+right%2Calright&year_start=1985&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3

Maybe editors should be telling the authors that their story

Do you mean tell them their story is not alright?

Seriously, there are a gazillion things that make a story more readable (or less readable). Pointing out each one might be nitpicking, but put all the gazillion nitpicking ones together and it makes a difference. Sometimes you can only improve by making one fix at a time.

Maybe editors should be telling the authors that their story makes no sense, that they have ridiculous dialogue, that no one wants to read stories with no drama, etc instead of correcting minor grammar mistakes.

I think most of SOL's editors would better be described as proofreaders or beta readers, valuable in their own right but not capable of reining in authors whose stories contain structural defects.

AJ

Black Sheep Matter

Black Dairy Sheep Matter

AJ

I don't think I've ever heard of people using sheep milk.

You can buy it in some UK supermarkets now. Unsurprisingly it's quite pricey relative to cows' milk.

AJ

Are ewe flocking kidding me..??

The science of breeding dairy sheep is ewegenics ;-)

AJ

All Sheep Matter.

All Lives Matter is considered racist now. Go figure.

All Lives Matter is considered racist now. Go figure.

So is:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!"

That's how I've always lived my life and I'm sick and tired of being accused of being a racist purely on account of my race.

On the other hand I've read that MLK Jr was a big supporter of affirmative action, which if true would essentially make the "I have a dream" speech a lie.

There is quite the difference between what was meant by 'Affirmative Action' when JFK wrote Executive Order 10925 in 1961, and what it came to mean much later. He ordered that government contractors were to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

And that fit exactly with MLK, Jr.'s 'content of their character' vs. 'color of their skin'.

The point of Kennedy's executive order was to give equal opportunity for employment to all citizens, not to give any special treatment to those who had been discriminated against in the past.

Would you ever have thought MLK Jr would be considered a Uncle Tom?

And Margaret Mitchell is considered a racist today because she wrote "Gone With the Wind" (which critics say "are insensitive portraits of blacks and a glorification of the Old South") even though she anonymously helped finance at least 20 black medical students at Morehouse College in the late 1940s.

One was Otis Smith who was on the verge of dropping out of medical school when an anonymous benefactor (Margaret Mitchell) stepped in and paid his tuition. He didn't find out it was her until 35 years later. He was the first licensed black pediatrician in Georgia and the former president of The Atlanta NCAAP. He didn't think she was a racist, saying, "Her book describes life the way it was then. We may not like it, but that's history."

*shakes head*