Alot or a lot????
freespirit
alot...some even say allot (cringe).
Thanks.
P&DSchultz
>
> Which is the correct way to say it? I say a lot.....a lot of people say
> alot...some even say allot (cringe).
How can you tell which they are saying? Are there little talk
balloons over their heads, like in the comics?
//P. Schultz
Markus Laker
> Which is the correct way to say it? I say a lot.....a lot of people say
> alot...some even say allot (cringe).
'A lot' means 'a good deal'. 'Allot' is a verb meaning 'allocate' or
'apportion'.
If some of the answers you've had are a bit sarky, it's because we don't
generally respond well to dictionary questions. I recommend looking in
at least one decent dictionary before posting this kind of question.
It's quicker for you, it's easier for us, and it's better than being
sent away with a flea in your ear.
Despite all this, welcome to the group.
Markus
--
a.u.e FAQ and resources: http://welcome.to/aue
** News server is leaky and ISP is threating to withdraw it completely;
** emailed copies of replies requested.
Drop the 'drop this bit' bit of my email address to reply.
N.Mitchum
-----
> Which is the correct way to say it? I say a lot.....a lot of people say
> alot...some even say allot (cringe).
I seriously doubt you've heard any people differentiate in their
speech between the three spellings. Possibly (or almost
certainly) you have come across the spellings in reading the
Internet and Usenet, where brows are not particularly high.
"A lot" is correct. "Alot" is close to illiterate, though some
may try to defend it on the grounds of its being so widespread.
"Allot" is utterly wrong, unless it's supposed to be the verb for
giving out shares of something.
----NM [If replying by e-mail, please heed my address]
freespirit
Sheesh!! I didn't know I'd have to go through a lot of BS to get the answer.
I inadvertently said *say* instead of *write* and walked right into a virtual
land mine. Have a good life....
Scott J Nieto wrote:
> freespirit wrote:
>
> > Which is the correct way to say it? I say a lot.....a lot of people say
> > alot...some even say allot (cringe).
> >
> > I'm sorry, I don't understand? I sit here looking at your question and I
> > just don't get it! Am I an idiot? You have me absolutely perplexed! I'm
> > actually afraid to answer this question. I love this question. thank you.
>
> I say "a-lot", just as I say , "a-tiger", "a-dollar", .......?
Scott J Nieto
Scott J Nieto
Markus Laker wrote:
If some of the answers you've had are a bit sarky,
> Markus
What the hec is "sarky"? Never heard that one before.
Truly Donovan
<frees...@netcarrier.com> wrote:
>Which is the correct way to say it? I say a lot.....a lot of people say
>alot...some even say allot (cringe).
How can you tell what they're saying? Don't you have to wait until
they write it down?
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Scott J Nieto
>
> Sheesh!! I didn't know I'd have to go through a lot of BS to get the answer. I inadvertently said *say* instead of *write* and walked right into a virtual land mine. Have a good life....
>
>
wasted your time.
N.Mitchum
------
> >"A lot" is correct. "Alot" is close to illiterate, though some
> >may try to defend it on the grounds of its being so widespread.
>
> unfortunately chosen to single as not elligible for the dictionary when in
> fact it is an English word that practically every English speaker over the
> age of 2 understands completely.
>......
Two-year-old chilren writing? You educational system is far more
progressive than ours.
------
> Somethings are worth fighting (eg. he should *of* washed the dog) but not
> the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your attitude
> towards it).
>......
Two-year-old chilren writing? You educational system is far more
progressive than ours.
My attitude, you'll eventually learn, is also the attitude of many
of the people who will be in control of your life. When they come
across someone who writes "alot," they assume on the spot that
this person has had a deficient education and is probably
immature. That's a fact. You may use such spellings with perfect
freedom when communicating with others whose skills and career
prospects are similar to yours, but you'd be well advised to avoid
such childish illiteracies when addressing those above you.
I have the same negative reaction to "somethings are worth
fighting for" -- such as an overall competence in language skills?
But perhaps you compensate by writing "some body."
JMichaeI
>Illiterate my arse. Alot is just one of the few words that try-hards have
>unfortunately chosen to single as not elligible for the dictionary when in
>fact it is an English word that practically every English speaker over the
>age of 2 understands completely.
>
Illiterate, yes -- your arse, well, that's another newsgroup. . . It's two
words, period -- A lot. Any other usage is wrong.
And what, pray tell, is a "try-hard"? "Die-hard" we all know about. ". . .
unfortunately chosen to single as not. . ."???? Don't you mean ". . . single
_ouy_ as not. . ."?
Most English speakers with more than a passing acquaintance with the written
language know that "a lot" is two words.
RE: Somethings are worth fighting (eg. he should *of* washed the dog) but not
the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your attitude
towards it).
Gawd! How terribly you write! Try: Some things are worth fighting
for (e.g., he should *of* washed the dog) but not the word alot, with which
there is nothing wrong, aside from your attitude toward it).
Additionally, "he should of washed the dog" is an error resulting from a
misunderstanding of the pronunciation of ". . . should've washed. . ." and is
also quite in error.
You might choose to accept such illiterate usages into your written language,
but let me assure you, anyone who writes for a living will not, and those who
know better will look down on you and not take you seriously.
Instead of clinging to your adolescent arrogance, learn proper English, then
deviate from it if you must, but don't argue with accepted usage simply because
a large number of people don't know any better.
------------------------------
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/">Catch 23</A><BR>
http://members.aol.com/jmichaei/
<P>
<I>The devil loves nothing more than the intolerance of reformers. . ." James
Russell Lowell
</B></I><BR>
Catherine
Scott J Nieto <sar...@ppp.kornet.nm.kr> wrote in article
<363D6E17...@ppp.kornet.nm.kr>...
colloquial abbreviation of 'sarcastic' (used in the UK and, I think, Aus/NZ)
Markus Laker
> What the hec is "sarky"? Never heard that one before.
And, before posting, you looked up the word in ..?
Only kidding. You probably wouldn't find it in a concise American
dictionary. It's a British colloquialism for 'sarcastic'. I
deliberately throw in these Briticisms from time to time as a
contribution to thread drift.
Markus
--
a.u.e FAQ and resources: http://welcome.to/aue
** News server is leaky; emailed copies of replies are requested.
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>Illiterate my arse. Alot is just one of the few words that try-hards have
>unfortunately chosen to single as not elligible for the dictionary when in
>fact it is an English word that practically every English speaker over the
>age of 2 understands completely.
Shouldn't that be "Illiterate myarse"? After all, if we are going to
start collapsing articles into nouns and blessing them as literate
writing, why not pronouns as well? Every English speaker over the age
of two understands "a lot" every bit as well, if not better, than they
understand "alot," which this English-speaker-over-the-age-of-two
considers illiterate at best.
Since a great many readers consider it an error indicating a lack of
intelligence (because anyone who is smart knows that it is an article
and a three-letter noun, not a four-letter noun incorporating its
article), a writer who doesn't want to incur any judgment of lack of
intelligence unnecessarily is well-advised to avoid it.
>
>Somethings are worth fighting (eg. he should *of* washed the dog) but not
>the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your attitude
>towards it).
The only thing defensible about "alot" is that a lot of people make
the error, but it hasn't a single virtue of its own except to
complicate the possibilities of confusion with "allot."
Gerald B Mathias
: Which is the correct way to say it? I say a lot.....a lot of people say
: alot...some even say allot (cringe).
I don't think it makes awholelot of difference.
(But then, I don't even fight "*of*.")
Bart Mathias
Tabbie
unfortunately chosen to single as not elligible for the dictionary when in
fact it is an English word that practically every English speaker over the
age of 2 understands completely.
Somethings are worth fighting (eg. he should *of* washed the dog) but not
the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your attitude
towards it).
--
Tabbie »^..^«
N.Mitchum wrote in message <363CE9...@removeme.lafn.org>...
>freespirit wrote:
>-----
>> Which is the correct way to say it? I say a lot.....a lot of people say
>> alot...some even say allot (cringe).
>>.....
>
>I seriously doubt you've heard any people differentiate in their
>speech between the three spellings. Possibly (or almost
>certainly) you have come across the spellings in reading the
>Internet and Usenet, where brows are not particularly high.
>
>"A lot" is correct. "Alot" is close to illiterate, though some
>may try to defend it on the grounds of its being so widespread.
>"Allot" is utterly wrong, unless it's supposed to be the verb for
>giving out shares of something.
>
>
Philip Newton
>
> freespirit (frees...@netcarrier.com) wrote:
> : Which is the correct way to say it? I say a lot.....a lot of people say
> : alot...some even say allot (cringe).
>
Well said, IMHO.
Cheers,
Philip
Skitt
Truly Donovan wrote in message <3646145e...@news3.ibm.net>...
>>unfortunately chosen to single as not elligible for the dictionary when in
>>fact it is an English word that practically every English speaker over the
>>age of 2 understands completely.
>
>start collapsing articles into nouns and blessing them as literate
>writing, why not pronouns as well? Every English speaker over the age
>of two understands "a lot" every bit as well, if not better, than they
>understand "alot," which this English-speaker-over-the-age-of-two
>considers illiterate at best.
>
>Since a great many readers consider it an error indicating a lack of
>intelligence (because anyone who is smart knows that it is an article
>and a three-letter noun, not a four-letter noun incorporating its
>article), a writer who doesn't want to incur any judgment of lack of
>intelligence unnecessarily is well-advised to avoid it.
>>
>>the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your attitude
>>towards it).
>
>the error, but it hasn't a single virtue of its own except to
>complicate the possibilities of confusion with "allot."
Ithink it's notof anyuse totry to change Tabbie's styleof presentation.
Aslong asit's understandable to twoyearolds it's justfine, right? Iwon't
worry alot aboutit.
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
Central Florida CAUTION: My opinion may vary.
Peter Moylan
>Illiterate my arse. Alot is just one of the few words that try-hards have
>unfortunately chosen to single as not elligible for the dictionary when in
>fact it is an English word that practically every English speaker over the
>age of 2 understands completely.
and under the age of 20
How quickly do you want the dictionaries to react? I had never seen this
"word" until it started turning up in the newsgroups. It still strikes
me as a gross illiteracy, especially since the only people who use it are
those whose writing is peppered with other spelling errors. There must
be plenty of people who have not yet seen it written down, and who would
be confused on seeing it.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
Perchprism
>From: "Tabbie" <Tab...@bigpond.com>
>Date: 11/4/98 6:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <36403...@139.134.5.33>
>
>>And what, pray tell, is a "try-hard"? "Die-hard" we all know about. ". .
>
>When used to refer to people on this group it is suggesting that they wish
>they were intellectual/academic types but really they are not.
>
>Try-hards are just poor little people whose only way of making themselves
>feel that they are better than 'normal' people is by insisting on telling
>them that certain English usages that have existed for a long time are not
>valid, will not be valid and have never been valid.
>
>It is quite suprising that with your supposed level of understanding of
>English you were not able to deduce the meaning of try-hard without my
>assistance.
We're not telepathic like your cat is. Furthermore, your writing is so poor
that it's only natural that a reader would hesitate to go to the trouble of
trying to conjure your two-paragraph definition from the meagre material
provided by the mere mention of your private joke word, "try-hard," which I,
myself, assumed to be some sort of malapropism, given that your writing is so
poor.
"A lot" is spelled "a lot." What's hard?
Yes, this is a flame.
Perchprism
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God." John 1:1
Robert Bryan Lipton
Tabbie wrote in message <36403...@139.134.5.33>...
>I meant the concept of the word is understood and that most people would
>consider it to be exactly that - a word.
>
>A lot - meaning one single "lot" of something is different to "alot"
meaning
>heaps of something eg: "he likes her alot" is like saying "he likes her
>heaps" not "his liking for her is equal to one division/share/allotment".
>
>--
>Tabbie »^..^«
>N.Mitchum wrote in message <363DEB...@removeme.lafn.org>...
>>Tabbie wrote:
>>------
>>> >"A lot" is correct. "Alot" is close to illiterate, though some
>>> >may try to defend it on the grounds of its being so widespread.
>>>
>have
>>> unfortunately chosen to single as not elligible for the dictionary when
>in
>>> fact it is an English word that practically every English speaker over
>the
>>> age of 2 understands completely.
>>
>>Two-year-old chilren writing? You educational system is far more
>>progressive than ours.
>>
>>------
not
>>> the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your
>attitude
Look up 'exeme' in your dictionary.
Bob
Robert Bryan Lipton
'Another' is a word. 'Alot' is not. Likemany peo ple who ar gue
withTruly, you miss the clear, clean writing sug gestions ofher posts. In
stead, you offer i deas that fail tocovince.
Bob
Tabbie wrote in message <36403...@139.134.5.33>...
>And do you all have similar objections to "another" ?
>
>--
>Tabbie »^..^«
>Truly Donovan wrote in message <3646145e...@news3.ibm.net>...
>>On Tue, 3 Nov 1998 11:56:52 +1100, "Tabbie" <Tab...@bigpond.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Illiterate my arse. Alot is just one of the few words that try-hards
have
>>>unfortunately chosen to single as not elligible for the dictionary when
in
>>>fact it is an English word that practically every English speaker over
the
>>>age of 2 understands completely.
>>
>>Shouldn't that be "Illiterate myarse"? After all, if we are going to
>>start collapsing articles into nouns and blessing them as literate
>>writing, why not pronouns as well? Every English speaker over the age
>>of two understands "a lot" every bit as well, if not better, than they
>>understand "alot," which this English-speaker-over-the-age-of-two
>>considers illiterate at best.
>>
>>Since a great many readers consider it an error indicating a lack of
>>intelligence (because anyone who is smart knows that it is an article
>>and a three-letter noun, not a four-letter noun incorporating its
>>article), a writer who doesn't want to incur any judgment of lack of
>>intelligence unnecessarily is well-advised to avoid it.
>>>
>>>Somethings are worth fighting (eg. he should *of* washed the dog) but not
>>>the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your
attitude
>>>towards it).
>>
>>The only thing defensible about "alot" is that a lot of people make
>>the error, but it hasn't a single virtue of its own except to
>>complicate the possibilities of confusion with "allot."
>>
JMichaeI
illerate English:
>And do you all have similar objections to "another" ?
Another is a legitimate word and has been for a long time. Alot is a
misunderstanding. Your delineations are nothing but variations of meaning for
the same term, "a lot." For years I spelled "sycophant" as "syncophant." I
was wrong. When it was pointed out to me, I admitted my error, corrected
myself and went on. Why can't you do the same?
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>I meant the concept of the word is understood and that most people would
>consider it to be exactly that - a word.
>
>A lot - meaning one single "lot" of something is different to "alot" meaning
>heaps of something eg: "he likes her alot" is like saying "he likes her
>heaps" not "his liking for her is equal to one division/share/allotment".
Oh, good grief -- now we're being told that "alot" is correct and "a
lot" meaning "a great deal" is wrong and all of the people who have
used it that way for centuries were mistaken.
This may be some new benchmark for AUE.
Gerald B Mathias
: I meant the concept of the word is understood and that most people would
: consider it to be exactly that - a word.
: A lot - meaning one single "lot" of something is different to "alot" meaning
: heaps of something eg: "he likes her alot" is like saying "he likes her
: heaps" not "his liking for her is equal to one division/share/allotment".
Right on! As in "He doesn't like her alot anymore, but he still
likes her abit."
Lots of these people who are objecting to "alot" probably would
want us to write "Lot s of these people ..." instead, doncha know.
There are aheap of people out there who don't know one word when
they see one!
Bart Mathias
Robert Bryan Lipton
Tabbie wrote in message <36410...@139.134.5.33>...
>So how long did people have to write another as one word before it became
>acceptable?
>
>I cannot see any justification for insisting on alot being written as two
>words.
>
>I would be very suprised if anyone wrote alot as two words the first time
>they wrote it - unless they had been previously warned to write it as two.
>
>It would be interesting to go into a primary school and have a look at how
>children instinctively choose to write it. I think they would favour alot.
The obvious conclusion is that you consider untutored children your
intellectual superiors. Given the tenor of your writing, this seems
likely.
Bob
Robert Lieblich
>
> So how long did people have to write another as one word before it became
> acceptable?
>
> I cannot see any justification for insisting on alot being written as two
> words.
>
> I would be very suprised if anyone wrote alot as two words the first time
> they wrote it - unless they had been previously warned to write it as two.
>
> It would be interesting to go into a primary school and have a look at how
> children instinctively choose to write it. I think they would favour alot.
The problem, tabbie, is that children have to be taught to spell. They
use the spelling "a lot" because that's the spelling they're taught.
Left to their own devices, they spell everything as phonetically as they
can. "Right becomes "rite" or even "rit." "Taught" becomes "taut" or
even "tot." You can't trust children's spellings, because spelling is a
matter of convention, not logic.
Over time, usages shift, and so do spellings. Different countries spell
the same word in different ways -- color/colour, stigmatize/stigmatise,
learned/learnt. There's a lot of variety out there. But there's also a
lot of consistency.
It's not easy to know when to accept a new usage. If you read some of
the threads on usage in this NG, you'll see everything from the avant
garde ("if someone can say it, it must be English") to the rock-ribbed
conservative ("that's not how I learned it in school back when Lloyd
George was PM"). Most of us are somewhere in between. When you come
along and announce that something that most of us still think is a
misspelling is in fact a standard usage, you adopt a very avant-garde
position, and people disagree with you. They don't acknowledge the
spelling "alot." Your attempt to defend it by differentiating it from
"a lot," which is what most of us think is the "correct" spelling,
doesn't help.
I'm willing to acknowledge that "alot" has been popping up alot lately.
I don't like "alot," I won't use it myself, and I would treat it as a
misspelling if it showed up in a piece of writing that I was reviewing.
If you want to defend it, the only defense that makes sense is that it
has become so common that the time has arrived to accept it as an
alternative to "a lot." I don't agree, but I can at least sympathize.
You are neither evil nor misguided for pointing out the obvious, but
neither are we evil or misguided for not wanting to see a misspelling
(which, to us, "alot" still is) become standard.
Okay?
Bob Lieblich
Idiom Savant
Tabbie
--
Tabbie
consider it to be exactly that - a word.
A lot - meaning one single "lot" of something is different to "alot" meaning
heaps of something eg: "he likes her alot" is like saying "he likes her
heaps" not "his liking for her is equal to one division/share/allotment".
--
Tabbie »^..^«
N.Mitchum wrote in message <363DEB...@removeme.lafn.org>...
>Tabbie wrote:
>------
>> >"A lot" is correct. "Alot" is close to illiterate, though some
>> >may try to defend it on the grounds of its being so widespread.
>>
>> Illiterate my arse. Alot is just one of the few words that try-hards
have
>> unfortunately chosen to single as not elligible for the dictionary when
in
>> fact it is an English word that practically every English speaker over
the
>> age of 2 understands completely.
>>......
>
>Two-year-old chilren writing? You educational system is far more
>progressive than ours.
>
>------
>> Somethings are worth fighting (eg. he should *of* washed the dog) but not
>> the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your
attitude
>> towards it).
>>......
>
>Two-year-old chilren writing? You educational system is far more
>progressive than ours.
>
>My attitude, you'll eventually learn, is also the attitude of many
>of the people who will be in control of your life. When they come
>across someone who writes "alot," they assume on the spot that
>this person has had a deficient education and is probably
>immature. That's a fact. You may use such spellings with perfect
>freedom when communicating with others whose skills and career
>prospects are similar to yours, but you'd be well advised to avoid
>such childish illiteracies when addressing those above you.
>
>I have the same negative reaction to "somethings are worth
>fighting for" -- such as an overall competence in language skills?
>But perhaps you compensate by writing "some body."
>
>
Tabbie
A try-hard is someone who trys really hard to be something they are not.
When used to refer to people on this group it is suggesting that they wish
they were intellectual/academic types but really they are not.
Try-hards are just poor little people whose only way of making themselves
feel that they are better than 'normal' people is by insisting on telling
them that certain English usages that have existed for a long time are not
valid, will not be valid and have never been valid.
It is quite suprising that with your supposed level of understanding of
English you were not able to deduce the meaning of try-hard without my
assistance.
Tabbie »^..^«
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>And do you all have similar objections to "another" ?
Inasmuch as no one is going to dismiss my writing as illiterate if I
have occasion to write, say, "do you want another cookie," but some
people might find it disturbing if I were to write "do you want an
other cookie," no.
If this was an argument in support of "alot," it failed for lack of
parallelity.
JMichaeI
>Right on! As in "He doesn't like her alot anymore, but he still
>likes her abit."
>
>Lots of these people who are objecting to "alot" probably would
>want us to write "Lot s of these people ..." instead, doncha know.
>There are aheap of people out there who don't know one word when
>they see one!
Please, please, please, please, please tell me you're being facetious.
JMichaeI
>What cat?
>
>Perchprism wrote in message >We're not telepathic like your cat is.
>Furthermore, your writing is so poor
>
>I disagree.
Duh!
Your writing is poor, and you're too arrogant to accept correction or
criticism.
>... your private joke word, "try-hard," which I,
>>myself, assumed to be some sort of malapropism, given that your writing is
>so
>>poor.
>
>My private joke word? I don't think so. You should leave your computer for
>a few hours and go out into the real world. Then maybe you would be able to
>understand English as it is used.
Yeah, your private joke-word. I've been around a few years and been in most of
the 50 states and a couple other English speaking countries, and never have I
ever heard this word used once.
>Tabbie »^..^«
According to my dictionaries, that's spelled "Tabby."
I'll bet you confuse the use of "then" and "than" too, and probably think
"alright" is all right, too. Just because a poorly-taught group of children
somehow managed to get out of school without an adequate grasp of the language
doesn't mean the rest of the world has to accept their ignorance _or_
arrogance.
David McMurray
> <Tab...@bigpond.com> heaped words on the screen somewhat resembling:
[...]
> >Tabbie
> According to my dictionaries, that's spelled "Tabby."
With a capital "T"? What dictionaries are those, then?
And what do they have to say about "JMichaeI"?
--
David
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>So how long did people have to write another as one word before it became
>acceptable?
Offhand, I would guess that "another" was considered one word long
before there were spelling rules, which are a comparatively recent
development in English.
>
>I cannot see any justification for insisting on alot being written as two
>words.
It's hard to tell what you would consider justification, so I'm not
going to take the bait. My justification for writing it as two words
is that one of the words is an article and the other is a noun and I
generally apply the fundamental principle of writing nouns with their
accompanying articles with a space in between.
>
>I would be very suprised if anyone wrote alot as two words the first time
>they wrote it - unless they had been previously warned to write it as two.
I would equally surprised to find it otherwise. In my better than half
century of reading, I don't recall having seen it as one word until
Usenet. Do you think most people start by writing words they've never
read?
>
>It would be interesting to go into a primary school and have a look at how
>children instinctively choose to write it. I think they would favour alot.
This may be the crux of the disagreement -- accepting but only for the
moment your argument that children would spell it that way
instinctively, is instinctive spelling illiterate or not? Most people
tend to prefer that spelling be schooled rather than instinctive,
because spelling consistency tends to allow far greater access to the
written word. Indeed, this may well be the primary motivation behind
the development of spelling rules in the history of the English
language.
That, and being able to determine who is illiterate, of course.
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>Yep, (that's a variation on yes for those who don't know). I understand
>what you are saying and to some extent I agree. I feel that people focus
>too much on words such as alot and alright. If it were just a matter of
>spelling then being corrected is okay but when people tell me that words
>that I frequently use are actually not words and they have no justification
>for why they should not be words then I consider it stubborn and foolish.
One wonders for what readership and purpose your writing is intended.
It is perhaps reasonable for you to consider your readers stubborn and
foolish for finding your writing illiterate, but it is not a viable
position for people who write in hopes that their message will be
successfully communicated to a reader who may indeed be just that
stubborn and foolish. There are readers to whose tastes I will refuse
to pander, but they are a smaller set than the set of those who would
find "alot" illiterate.
>
>I would normally consider myself very conservative when it comes to how
>English should be written and spoken but only if I believe that things
>should remain how they are for a good reason. No-one has provided any
>reason why alot should not be a word.
You've won your argument, of course, because you have dismissed the
readers that don't agree with your usage. That makes it really easy.
Jeff Pack
> I would be very suprised if anyone wrote alot as two words the first time
> they wrote it - unless they had been previously warned to write it as two.
Presumably they'd seen it written that way before. If they hadn't seen it
written, I wouldn't consider them "native" writers of English, no matter
how great a command of the spoken language they had.
Jeff
Albert Marshall
>Tabbie wrote:
>>
<...>
>>
>> It would be interesting to go into a primary school and have a look at how
>> children instinctively choose to write it. I think they would favour alot.
>
>use the spelling "a lot" because that's the spelling they're taught.
>Left to their own devices, they spell everything as phonetically as they
>can. "Right becomes "rite" or even "rit." "Taught" becomes "taut" or
>even "tot." You can't trust children's spellings, because spelling is a
>matter of convention, not logic.
>
which hit the paper as "fuk yu". Honest!
--
Albert Marshall
Visual Solutions
Kent, England
01634 400902
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> Well, I've done plenty of reading in my life and despite the fact that alot
> is usually written in books as two words I have always written it as one.
>
> I was very suprised when I was first told it was supposed to be one word.
> As I do not agree that the word alot (or the word alright) don't exist, I
> choose to continue using them.
>
> Other than a teacher at school pointing out that they were not in the
> dictionary no-one has ever commented on my usage of these two words and I
> had not seen the topic come up except for on this group.
>
> I did notice that Word 98 makes alot into a lot if it is installed with the
> default settings. I turned that option off.
Look, Tabbie, you aren't paying attention. Most speakers of English do
not recognize "alot" as a word. They accept "a lot" as a noun and the
article that precedes it, and they use it as idiom dictates. Those who
say "alot" isn't a word say it because they haven't seen it in print
until recently (just as you say you haven't, for the most part), and
they haven't found it in the dictionary (just as you haven't), and their
spell-checkers warn against it (just as yours does), so they would
rather regard it as a misspelling of "a lot" than as a whole new word.
That isn't to say that "alot" won't some day be respectable. There's no
way of predicting that. Right now, however, its respectability is very
much in doubt.
You have come to one of the very few places on the entire Internet where
people try to use the language with some precision and told them how you
do whatever you damned will please, you're going to keep on doing it,
and no one is going to stop you. You can also wear a sweatsuit to the
opera and a tank top to the office, although you may not escape the
consequences quite as easily. Take all the pride you want in your
independence from the slavish adherence to tradition that you find in
this group. You're right -- no one can stop you.
But some of us will tell you that you are being foolish, and that we
think you're either a fool or a troll, and that we are going to ignore
you. Others are likely to flame you. Very, very few will think well of
you, and even fewer will respect you. But if that doesn't bother you,
go right ahead and do whatever you want. None of us can reach through
the Net, even virtually, and throttle you.
But why, if you don't care what we think, are you wasting your time on
us? It's not as if you're welcome here.
Bob Lieblich
Idiom Savant
Robert Bryan Lipton
Henry Tickner wrote in message ...
>In article <71pn6j$h4v$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Robert Bryan
>Lipton <bobl...@earthlink.net> writes
><...>
>>>>Tabbie wrote:
><...>
>>>>> Somethings are worth fighting (eg. he should *of* washed the dog) but
>>not
>>>>> the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your
>>>attitude
>>
>
>or exempt. Am I missing something, or does "exeme" have another more
>technical meaning, contrasting with perhaps "phoneme"?
>
>--
>Henry Tickner
I apologize, Henry. A slip of the fingers. The word I meant was
lexeme
Bob
Tabbie
Perchprism wrote in message >We're not telepathic like your cat is.
Furthermore, your writing is so poor
I disagree.
... your private joke word, "try-hard," which I,
>myself, assumed to be some sort of malapropism, given that your writing is
so
>poor.
My private joke word? I don't think so. You should leave your computer for
a few hours and go out into the real world. Then maybe you would be able to
understand English as it is used.
Tabbie »^..^«
Tabbie
acceptable?
I cannot see any justification for insisting on alot being written as two
words.
I would be very suprised if anyone wrote alot as two words the first time
they wrote it - unless they had been previously warned to write it as two.
It would be interesting to go into a primary school and have a look at how
children instinctively choose to write it. I think they would favour alot.
--
Tabbie »^..^«
Truly Donovan wrote in message <3644ea37...@news3.ibm.net>...
>On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:39:34 +1100, "Tabbie" <Tab...@bigpond.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And do you all have similar objections to "another" ?
>
>Inasmuch as no one is going to dismiss my writing as illiterate if I
>have occasion to write, say, "do you want another cookie," but some
>people might find it disturbing if I were to write "do you want an
>other cookie," no.
>
>If this was an argument in support of "alot," it failed for lack of
>parallelity.
>
Tabbie
>Tabbie wrote:
>>
>> So how long did people have to write another as one word before it became
>> acceptable?
>>
>> I cannot see any justification for insisting on alot being written as two
>> words.
>>
>> I would be very suprised if anyone wrote alot as two words the first time
>> they wrote it - unless they had been previously warned to write it as
two.
>>
>> It would be interesting to go into a primary school and have a look at
how
>> children instinctively choose to write it. I think they would favour
alot.
>
>use the spelling "a lot" because that's the spelling they're taught.
>Left to their own devices, they spell everything as phonetically as they
>can. "Right becomes "rite" or even "rit." "Taught" becomes "taut" or
>even "tot." You can't trust children's spellings, because spelling is a
>matter of convention, not logic.
Yes, I agree. Even after being taught spelling rules etc. I feel that most
people would be inclined to write alot as one word.
>Over time, usages shift, and so do spellings. Different countries spell
>the same word in different ways -- color/colour, stigmatize/stigmatise,
>learned/learnt. There's a lot of variety out there. But there's also a
>lot of consistency.
True, but really I don't consider this a spelling issue.
>It's not easy to know when to accept a new usage. If you read some of
>the threads on usage in this NG, you'll see everything from the avant
>garde ("if someone can say it, it must be English") to the rock-ribbed
>conservative ("that's not how I learned it in school back when Lloyd
>George was PM"). Most of us are somewhere in between. When you come
>along and announce that something that most of us still think is a
>misspelling is in fact a standard usage, you adopt a very avant-garde
>position, and people disagree with you. They don't acknowledge the
>spelling "alot." Your attempt to defend it by differentiating it from
>"a lot," which is what most of us think is the "correct" spelling,
>doesn't help.
>
>I'm willing to acknowledge that "alot" has been popping up alot lately.
>I don't like "alot," I won't use it myself,
You just did!
and I would treat it as a
>misspelling if it showed up in a piece of writing that I was reviewing.
>If you want to defend it, the only defense that makes sense is that it
>has become so common that the time has arrived to accept it as an
>alternative to "a lot." I don't agree, but I can at least sympathize.
>You are neither evil nor misguided for pointing out the obvious, but
>neither are we evil or misguided for not wanting to see a misspelling
>(which, to us, "alot" still is) become standard.
>Okay?
Yep, (that's a variation on yes for those who don't know). I understand
what you are saying and to some extent I agree. I feel that people focus
too much on words such as alot and alright. If it were just a matter of
spelling then being corrected is okay but when people tell me that words
that I frequently use are actually not words and they have no justification
for why they should not be words then I consider it stubborn and foolish.
I would normally consider myself very conservative when it comes to how
English should be written and spoken but only if I believe that things
should remain how they are for a good reason. No-one has provided any
reason why alot should not be a word.
>Bob Lieblich
>Idiom Savant
Tabbie
whether alot is a word. I believe it is.
--
Tabbie »^..^«
Truly Donovan wrote in message <36420152...@news3.ibm.net>...
>On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 01:11:00 +1100, "Tabbie" <Tab...@bigpond.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So how long did people have to write another as one word before it became
>>acceptable?
>
>Offhand, I would guess that "another" was considered one word long
>before there were spelling rules, which are a comparatively recent
>development in English.
>>
>>I cannot see any justification for insisting on alot being written as two
>>words.
>
>It's hard to tell what you would consider justification, so I'm not
>going to take the bait. My justification for writing it as two words
>is that one of the words is an article and the other is a noun and I
>generally apply the fundamental principle of writing nouns with their
>accompanying articles with a space in between.
>>
>>I would be very suprised if anyone wrote alot as two words the first time
>>they wrote it - unless they had been previously warned to write it as two.
>
>I would equally surprised to find it otherwise. In my better than half
>century of reading, I don't recall having seen it as one word until
>Usenet. Do you think most people start by writing words they've never
>read?
>>
>>It would be interesting to go into a primary school and have a look at how
>>children instinctively choose to write it. I think they would favour
alot.
>
>This may be the crux of the disagreement -- accepting but only for the
>moment your argument that children would spell it that way
>instinctively, is instinctive spelling illiterate or not? Most people
>tend to prefer that spelling be schooled rather than instinctive,
>because spelling consistency tends to allow far greater access to the
>written word. Indeed, this may well be the primary motivation behind
>the development of spelling rules in the history of the English
>language.
>
>That, and being able to determine who is illiterate, of course.
>
Tabbie
>"Tabbie" <Tab...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> I would be very suprised if anyone wrote alot as two words the first time
>> they wrote it - unless they had been previously warned to write it as
two.
>
>written, I wouldn't consider them "native" writers of English, no matter
>how great a command of the spoken language they had.
>Jeff
Well, I've done plenty of reading in my life and despite the fact that alot
is usually written in books as two words I have always written it as one.
I was very suprised when I was first told it was supposed to be one word.
As I do not agree that the word alot (or the word alright) don't exist, I
choose to continue using them.
Other than a teacher at school pointing out that they were not in the
dictionary no-one has ever commented on my usage of these two words and I
had not seen the topic come up except for on this group.
I did notice that Word 98 makes alot into a lot if it is installed with the
default settings. I turned that option off.
Tabbie »^..^«
Tabbie
<1di0gzz.e0v...@70-g1.kingston.net>...
Very few names appear in my Oxford and Collins dictionaries. Perhaps
JMichael has a *special* dictionary with "permissable first names" in it and
mine just doesn't cut the grade.
I wonder what he thinks of Sharon spelt Sharen or Sharyn and Leanne as Lian
or Leighanne? Are these permissable or are they as bad as Tabbie instead of
Tabby?
Tabbie (who hates her name to be spelled incorrectly by others) »^..^«
Henry Tickner
Lipton <bobl...@earthlink.net> writes
<...>
>>>Tabbie wrote:
<...>
>>>> Somethings are worth fighting (eg. he should *of* washed the dog) but
>not
>>>> the word alot, with which there is nothing wrong (aside from your
>>attitude
>
>Look up 'exeme' in your dictionary.
I did, and it said "see 'exeem'". Which is obsolete Scots for to release
or exempt. Am I missing something, or does "exeme" have another more
technical meaning, contrasting with perhaps "phoneme"?
--
Henry Tickner
The 'nospam' is my ISP's domain, the 'boudoir' is mine.
Henry Tickner
>I did notice that Word 98 makes alot into a lot if it is installed with the
>default settings.
That's the best argument yet for "alot". But it snot quite enough.
Lizlynn999
>reason why alot should not be a word.
It's just the way I hafta see it. Please don't confuse me any more than I
already am anymore. Wouldja? Thanx,
____________________________
Lynn P
"Outside a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside a dog, it's too dark to read." Groucho Marx
Lizlynn999
>As I do not agree that the word alot (or the word alright) don't exist, I
>choose to continue using them.
Ok. I ain't arguing, y'all.
Larry Phillips
<albert....@execfrog.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>My favourite example is an eight-year old's version of "thank you",
>which hit the paper as "fuk yu". Honest!
A budding lawyer!
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
When life looks like Easy Street, there is danger at your door.
-- Grateful Dead
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
Larry Phillips
wrote:
>Like I said before, I don't consider it a spelling issue. The issue is
>whether alot is a word. I believe it is.
If you use it in speech or writing, it's a word. However, you may
find that in using words that are not considerd words by your
readership, your message is less than curfundent.
Larry Phillips
wrote:
>Other than a teacher at school pointing out that they were not in the
>dictionary no-one has ever commented on my usage of these two words and I
>had not seen the topic come up except for on this group.
Most people don't correct spelling when reading things. Do not mistake
lack of correction for proof of correctness.
Of course people in this group mention it. It is, after all, a group
in which people discuss English usage. When we see non-Engl;ish being
presented as English, we talk about it.
Eric
wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 12:20:19 +1100, "Tabbie" <Tab...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I would normally consider myself very conservative when it comes to how
> >English should be written and spoken but only if I believe that things
> >should remain how they are for a good reason. No-one has provided any
> >reason why alot should not be a word.
>
> "Should" has nothing to do with it. No one has provided any reason why
> "newsgroup" should not be spelled "noozgroop." It simply isn't.
But that's no argument against writing "a lot" as "alot" because
in some contexts, by more than a few people, *it simply is*.
And 30 years ago "newsgroup" simply wasn't either.
The issue is how conventions are adopted, and if there is
any reason to expect or desire "alot" to follow "newsgroup"
into acceptable usage. "Should" has something to do with that.
The article-plus-noun argument is a reasonable one against it,
but in "I go to the theatre a lot", "a lot" can be
considered a single semantic entity synonymous with "often".
Skitt
Tabbie <Tab...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:36424...@139.134.5.33...
>Perhaps JMichael has a *special* dictionary with "permissable first
names" in it and
>mine just doesn't cut the grade.
>
>I wonder what he thinks of Sharon spelt Sharen or Sharyn and Leanne as
Lian
>or Leighanne? Are these permissable or are they as bad as Tabbie instead
of
>Tabby?
Does your dictionary have "permissable" in it?
--
Skitt http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/5537/
Central Florida CAUTION: My opinion may vary.
Skitt
>I was very suprised when I was first told it was supposed to be one word.
>As I do not agree that the word alot (or the word alright) don't exist, I
>choose to continue using them.
>
>Other than a teacher at school pointing out that they were not in the
>dictionary no-one has ever commented on my usage of these two words and I
>had not seen the topic come up except for on this group.
Actually, "alright" *is* in the dictionary, but "alot", for a very good
reason, isn't.
khann
>
> Bob Lieblich wrote:
>
> >But why, if you don't care what we think, are you wasting your time on
> >us?
> >
> > It's not as if you're welcome here.
>
>
> If you don't want to be on the same newsgroup as me why don't you leave?
> You're the one with the problem.
>
In reviewing your author profile I find that, in comparison to Lieblich,
_you_ are definitely the neophyte on AUE (I am even more so) and for
_you_ to invite _him_ to leave seems more than a trifle boorish. When a
person of average intelligence joins a group (actual or virtual) it is
normal to conform to the group's customs. You have flaunted the fact
that you wish to flout some of AUE's customs. Why then, would you wish
to remain in a group the customs of which you despise? Are you a
malcontent with a need to vent, an anarchist wishing to foment
revolution, a sadist wishing to torture the group, or a masochist
begging to be flogged?
Henry Tickner
Lipton <bobl...@earthlink.net> writes
>Henry Tickner wrote in message ...
>>Lipton <bobl...@earthlink.net> writes
<...>
>>
>>I did, and it said "see 'exeem'". Which is obsolete Scots for to release
>>or exempt. Am I missing something, or does "exeme" have another more
>>technical meaning, contrasting with perhaps "phoneme"?
>I apologize, Henry. A slip of the fingers. The word I meant was
>
>lexeme
Don't apologize. That's two new words I've met instead of one. I'm
looking forward to the next time I meet an obsolete Scot.
khann
>
> Very few names appear in my Oxford and Collins dictionaries. Perhaps
> JMichael has a *special* dictionary with "permissable first names" in it and
> mine just doesn't cut the grade.
>
> I wonder what he thinks of Sharon spelt Sharen or Sharyn and Leanne as Lian
> or Leighanne? Are these permissable or are they as bad as Tabbie instead of
> Tabby?
>
Is your name really Tabbie or is it just nickname for Tabitha, or
perhaps a "netname" derived from your affection for cats? It reminds me
of a friend of mine, legally named Tammie because her trailer-trash
momma couldn't manage Tamara. After running away from home and rising
above her origins, she became a physician and sought legal remedy for
the "cutesy" name inflicted upon her at birth.
Bob Cunningham
[ . . . ]
>The article-plus-noun argument is a reasonable one against it,
>but in "I go to the theatre a lot", "a lot" can be
>considered a single semantic entity synonymous with "often".
I find that argument quite persuasive. It shows that 'a lot' and
'alot' make an exact parallel to 'any more' and 'anymore'. 'A lot'
and 'any more' are adjective-noun phrases, while 'alot' and 'anymore'
are adverbs.
However, the distinction between 'any more' and 'anymore' has won
substantial acceptance, while 'alot' is not recognized by any
dictionary that I know of.
Before I read Eric's comment I was strongly opposed to 'alot'. Now I
favor its adoption. No one should start using it, though, until
everyone else does.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
Cunningham) wrote:
>Before I read Eric's comment I was strongly opposed to 'alot'. Now I
>favor its adoption. No one should start using it, though, until
>everyone else does.
>
Even Truly cannot deny this trenchancy!
N.Mitchum
------
> And you have the right to decide whether someone is welcome or not?
Good grief! Bob's right; you're just not paying attention, are
you? You seem to interpret every reply after your own whim. He's
merely reporting the obvious reaction of others who have tried to
reason with you and run up against the stone wall of a blinkered
mind. We do *not* welcome blustering ignorance; we may tolerate
it, or be amused by it occasionally, but never do we encourage it.
------
> If you don't want to be on the same newsgroup as me why don't you leave?
> You're the one with the problem.
>
> I don't have a problem being on a newsgroup with people that have different
> opinions than me. I like it.
>......
You like diversity, yet you advise Bob to leave if he can't give
in to you. You accuse him (and everyone agreeing with him, which
adds up to a considerable number) of having a problem because he
doesn't care for blockheads. He and others have shown some
versatility and intelligence during this discussion, while you
stick mulishly to your single assertion that "alot" is a genuine
word.
----NM [If replying by e-mail, please heed my address]
Jeff Pack
> However, the distinction between 'any more' and 'anymore' has won
> substantial acceptance...
Really? I've never seen "anymore" used outside of USENET or the
equivalent (i.e., writing forums open to even those who can't write).
Jeff
Robert Lieblich
>
> >But why, if you don't care what we think, are you wasting your time on
> >us?
>
> defining what is and isn't worthwhile to me.
It seems to me that you have told us in your postings what you do and
don't care about and what is and isn't worthwhile. I said that you
don't seem to be paying attention to us. Now it appears you aren't even
paying attention to yourself. (And is "thankyou" one word or two?)
> > It's not as if you're welcome here.
> And you have the right to decide whether someone is welcome or not?
Not at all. But I can read. By far the majority of responses to your
postings are hostile, not just to your ideas but to your attitude. Let
me suggest that you go to DejaNews and reread this entire thread. Then
post the evidence that you *are* welcome here.
>
> Is that just on this group or on usenet as a whole?
That's AUE. Read our postings. I'm sure there are many groups where
you would be welcome. It's unlikely that this will ever be one of them.
>
> Or is it only in threads to which you have contributed?
Meaningless question.
> If you don't want to be on the same newsgroup as me why don't you leave?
> You're the one with the problem.
This is like sitting in a symphony concert loudly playing Dr. Dre on a
boombox, then accusing the rest of the audience of having a problem when
they ask you to turn it off.
> I don't have a problem being on a newsgroup with people that have different
> opinions than me. I like it.
But you don't *listen* to those other opinions. To our repeated
pointing out of the many reasons why "alot" is not standard English, you
seem able to respond only that you use it and that's that. And I for
one then say, over and over, "fine, use it if it floats your boat, but
don't tell me that I should," and you don't seem to notice even that.
Whether you personally use "alot" or not has infinitesimally little to
do with whether it is standard English. For several years my wife used
the word "cravenous," which she had made up out of whole cloth. My
affection for her finally overbore my desire to humor her, and I told
her that she was the sole owner and user of the word. She never used it
again.
No one is saying that you have to stop using the spelling "alot" -- we
are simply trying to tell you that you are out of step with the rest of
the world. Your reply -- that the world is out of step with you -- was
amusing the first time, but by now I, for one, would appreciate it if
you would just shut up about it already. If you would like to post or
comment on some other topic, go for it! If your performance does not
improve, expect more hostile postings.
And one more thing -- this group is full of controversies over matters
of English usage that can get quite heated without getting personal.
Neil Coffey, for one, often says things that are quite provocative, but
it is clear that he is seriously concerned with the points he makes, and
the responses, even when showing exasperation or heat, almost never get
personal. If you can deal with the topic of English usage in a
persuasive fashion and respond tellingly to the points with which you
disagree, you will be treated by AUE posters with courtesy and respect
(for the most part; there's no anti-flame guarantee on Usenet). Go on
as you have, however, and you will continue to elicit the sort of
responses you have. In the total spectrum of such responses, I thought
mine was quite moderate.
Bob Lieblich
Idiom Savant
Ross Howard
>Is your name really Tabbie or is it just nickname for Tabitha, or
>perhaps a "netname" derived from your affection for cats? It reminds me
>of a friend of mine, legally named Tammie because her trailer-trash
>momma couldn't manage Tamara. After running away from home and rising
>above her origins, she became a physician and sought legal remedy for
>the "cutesy" name inflicted upon her at birth.
Go on, tell us what she changed it to so that we can all cruelly take
the piss.
"Tammie" is a fine name. If it were spelled correctly, it would a
tribute to the chanteuse who gave the world "Day, Ah, Vay, Ow, Or,
Say, Ay".
Ross H.
***Disclaimer***
If any of the above is incoherent, truncated or
otherwise dysfunctionally structured, there are
two possible explanations: either I hit "Send"
before reading it back.
K1912
[...]
>For several years my wife used
>the word "cravenous," which she had made up out of whole cloth. My
>affection for her finally overbore my desire to humor her, and I told
>her that she was the sole owner and user of the word. She never used it
>again.
Is "cravenous" her spelling or yours? Did she mean "cravenness" perhaps?
George, who has just remembered Richard Armor's:
Shake and shake the ketchup bottle,
None will come and then alot'll.
K1912
Bob Cunningham
>exw...@ix.netcom.com (Bob Cunningham) writes:
You might look in _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_,
s.v. 'anymore', where numerous citations of 'anymore' are given,
including quotes from Russell Baker, Owen Wister, and Erma Bombeck.
A usage note in a Random House unabridged dictionary (Second Edition,
1987), s.v. 'anymore' says:
The adverb 'anymore' meaning 'any longer' or 'nowadays' is
most commonly spelled as one word.
I might have added that while the specific use of 'anymore' as an
adverb has won substantial acceptance in the US, it seems to have won
almost no acceptance in the UK, where it is regarded simply as an
alternative spelling of 'any more' (1993 New Shorter Oxford).
Gerald B Mathias
: Like I said before, I don't consider it a spelling issue. The issue is
: whether alot is a word. I believe it is.
I wonder if you've already said what kind of word (part of speech:
noun, verb, etc.) it would be, and I missed it?
Another poster has acquiesced, more or less, to its use as an
adverb in certain cases, such as "I used to do it 'alot.'"
Even that might be tough to square with the rest of "I used to
do it alot--not a whole lot, but alot."
But an adverb ain't gonna go with "of" very well.
Bart Mathias
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >For several years my wife used
> >the word "cravenous," which she had made up out of whole cloth. My
> >affection for her finally overbore my desire to humor her, and I told
> >her that she was the sole owner and user of the word. She never used it
> >again.
>
> Is "cravenous" her spelling or yours? Did she mean "cravenness" perhaps?
Never saw her write it down. Given, however, that she used it as an
adjective, I'd vote for my spelling.
Okay, okay, it's been at least a year since I last mentioned it. She
used it to mean "greedy" or "grasping," but I don't think it was an
unconscious portmanteau of "craven" and "ravenous." It's been several
years now, and I lack the nerve to ask her. (She's a divorce lawyer.)
Bob Lieblich
Idiom Savant
Eric
> Look up '[l]exeme' in your dictionary.
This strikes me as a concession. The argument several people
have made is that "a lot" is an article-plus-noun, with
derivable meaning, and should be written as such. That's
true in "I'll find a lot to park my car", but it's not
a lexeme in that sentence
I tend to agree that when "a lot" means "a large number" or "a large
amount" or "often" it is a lexeme. (You can't say "a very lot" although
"a whole lot" works but I'd regard that as another lexeme.)
I believe the original point was that "a lot" used in this
sense is a single lexical unit, and therefore it makes sense,
and is consistent with previous evolution of our language,
that some people have begun to write it as a single word.
Eric
Lipton" <bobl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> You bring upmany irrel evacies, Tabbie, tothe discuss ion here.
> 'Another' is a word. 'Alot' is not.
I think this obvious statement is irrelevant to the question
of whether it makes sense to expect that "alot" might
someday become an acceptable word. Inasmuch as the objections I've
seen raised to "alot" would have, at some earlier time,
applied to most compound words, including "another", they
leave me unconvinced that it shouldn't be alright to use it
and to encourage its use hereafter, albeit in informal
settings such as newsgroups.
Eric
> >A lot - meaning one single "lot" of something is different to "alot" meaning
> >heaps of something eg: "he likes her alot" is like saying "he likes her
> >heaps" not "his liking for her is equal to one division/share/allotment".
>
> Oh, good grief -- now we're being told that "alot" is correct and "a
> lot" meaning "a great deal" is wrong and all of the people who have
> used it that way for centuries were mistaken.
I understood the argument to be that in the cases where "alot"
is proposed as an alternative to "a lot", that is where it
means "a good deal" or "often", the word "lot" has a meaning
not consistent with its meaning in isolated use. "Lot"
only means "large amount" when used with "a" (or in the plural).
Similar distinctions can be made between "an other" and "another",
or (as another has posted) between "anymore" and "any more",
or between "already" and "all ready" etc.
The distinction was offered as justification for accepting
"alot" as a word, based on many precedents.
Moreover, the "great deal" sense of "lot" is still considered
colloquial by the COD, so in a formal sense perhaps many did
consider all those people mistaken for centuries.
Eric
> But why, if you don't care what we think, are you wasting your time on
> us? It's not as if you're welcome here.
The best you can say, since the newsgroup consists of individuals,
is that she's unwelcome here. That would be true if one person
(you) considers her unwelcome. But it only takes one person
to welcome her to make your statement false, and that would be
me. I welcome the exploration of the parallels between "alot" and
the many compound words we have already accepted. And it's fun
to see the language bigots adopt a mob mentality. They surround
the perceived weak intruder, but are quite unable to
contradict her simple arguments, and resort to
stating the obvious: that "alot" is not sanctioned
by dictionaries, and its users risk the scorn of the wiser.
George F. Hardy
GFH
Tabbie
>us?
Thankyou for telling me what I do and don't care about. Thankyou for
defining what is and isn't worthwhile to me.
> It's not as if you're welcome here.
>Bob Lieblich
>Idiom Savant
And you have the right to decide whether someone is welcome or not?
Is that just on this group or on usenet as a whole?
Or is it only in threads to which you have contributed?
If you don't want to be on the same newsgroup as me why don't you leave?
You're the one with the problem.
I don't have a problem being on a newsgroup with people that have different
opinions than me. I like it.
Tabbie »^..^«
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>>But why, if you don't care what we think, are you wasting your time on
>>us?
>
>Thankyou for telling me what I do and don't care about. Thankyou for
>defining what is and isn't worthwhile to me.
Ah! Enlightenment. "Thankyou" is one word, too. The justification for
this curious loss of white space is obviously motivated by a misplaced
desire to conserve bandwidth. Bygradually eliminating the interword
spaces, we can cut down on the destruction of electrons and whole
forests will be saved.
>
>> It's not as if you're welcome here.
>
>And you have the right to decide whether someone is welcome or not?
Of course he does. He also has the right to be wrong, but in this case
there's little evidence in support of that view.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
John Holmes
Eric wrote in message ...
>
>The article-plus-noun argument is a reasonable one against it,
>but in "I go to the theatre a lot", "a lot" can be
>considered a single semantic entity synonymous with "often".
In that case, do you or Tabbie see any distinction between 'alot' and
'lots'?
Regards,
John.
hol...@smart.net.au
email copies of any replies would be appreciated.
John Holmes
Robert Lieblich wrote in message <364359...@erols.com>...
For several years my wife used
>the word "cravenous," which she had made up out of whole cloth. My
>affection for her finally overbore my desire to humor her, and I told
>her that she was the sole owner and user of the word. She never used
it
>again.
What a pity! Did she have a definition for it? A portmanteau of 'crave'
and 'ravenous' perhaps?
If it is a food word it might be a useful addition to the AUE lexicon.
Mark Odegard
k1...@aol.com (K1912) in
<19981106181300...@ng106.aol.com> wrote
|George, who has just remembered Richard Armor's:
|
| Shake and shake the ketchup bottle,
| None will come and then alot'll.
Oh dear. I hang my head in shame, but here it is. For years and
years and years, my own words to the song "Pettin' in the Park"
(from the Busby Berkeley film _42nd Street_) have buzzed through
my head. The original goes something like "Pettin' in the park,
oh no, ... first you pet a little, then you pet alot'll". My
version is "Poopin' on the Pot", and I'll leave it to your
scatological minds to figure out the lyric.
--
Mark Odegard. (Omit OMIT to email)
Emailed copies of responses are very much appreciated.
Eric
> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:39:34 +1100, "Tabbie" <Tab...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> >And do you all have similar objections to "another" ?
>
> Inasmuch as no one is going to dismiss my writing as illiterate if I
> have occasion to write, say, "do you want another cookie," but some
> people might find it disturbing if I were to write "do you want an
> other cookie," no.
>
> If this was an argument in support of "alot," it failed for lack of
> parallelity.
You have successfully identified the difference. But is the difference
any more than timing. How could you not see the parallel?
The Truly Donovans of a few centuries ago must have argued that
writing "another" would be dismissed as illiterate. But one sense of
"an other" diverged from the others and in this sense "an other"
became a single lexical unit and so in spite of the scorn heaped
on them, some people began to write the words together: "another".
When this became more common the meaning diverged further, and
eventually "another" became sanctioned as a word. And the Truly
Donovans of this century threaten scorn for those who
might insert a space when "another" is called for.
[I must qualify the above by saying that I have not researched
"another" except to see that the COD lists it as "an + other".
It may be that the convergence happened before spelling conventions
were solidified. But there are many compound words for which
the above scenario applies. Several like "alright" and "anymore"
are still in the controversial stage.]
The argument for "alot" as I understood it was simply that
the same forces that have pushed together many words are
at play in one sense of "a lot". I see no reason to resist "alot",
or to think less of people who use it, particularly in
a playful setting such as this.
Eric
wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 1998 11:41:30 +1100, "Tabbie" <Tab...@bigpond.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't have a problem being on a newsgroup with people that have different
> >opinions than me. I like it.
>
> My opinion is that your sentence should read:
>
> "I don't have a problem being on a newsgroup with people who have
> opinions different from mine."
Your opinion on "who" instead of "that" is contrary to the
recommendation in MEU2, and most dictionaries list
"that" as a pronoun for person or thing. In this thread
of all places, I would have thought dictionaries rule.
Paul Draper
K1912 wrote in message >
>George, who has just remembered Richard Armor's:
>
> Shake and shake the ketchup bottle,
> None will come and then alot'll.
>
>
>
My wife has it as :
If you do not shake the bottle...
which seems more accurate.
--
Paul Draper
pdr...@baig.co.uk
0171 369 2754
Ross Howard
>it's fun
>to see the language bigots adopt a mob mentality. They surround
>the perceived weak intruder, but are quite unable to
>contradict her simple arguments
Hasn't it crossed your mind that although being "quite unable" is
indeed a possibility, "having taken less than a second to decide that
some laughable assertions are so laughable that we're too busy
laughing to be bothered disproving them" is a distinct possibility
aswell [*sic*]?
Eric
> On Fri, 06 Nov 1998 23:34:11 -0600, na...@somewhere.sam (Eric) wrote:
>
> >it's fun
> >to see the language bigots adopt a mob mentality. They surround
> >the perceived weak intruder, but are quite unable to
> >contradict her simple arguments
>
> Hasn't it crossed your mind that although being "quite unable" is
> indeed a possibility, "having taken less than a second to decide that
> some laughable assertions are so laughable that we're too busy
> laughing to be bothered disproving them" is a distinct possibility
> aswell [*sic*]?
In some cases, though perhaps not yours, the alternative seems
to have required quite a lot of bother.
Geoff Butler
>In article <364253...@erols.com>, lieb...@erols.com wrote:
>
>> But why, if you don't care what we think, are you wasting your time on
>
>The best you can say, since the newsgroup consists of individuals,
>is that she's unwelcome here. That would be true if one person
>(you) considers her unwelcome. But it only takes one person
>to welcome her to make your statement false, and that would be
>me.
I don't accept that argument. The fact that, say, Burt Reynolds is a
popular actor isn't denied by one person disliking him, and it's not
even denied by the vast majority of people on this planet never having
seen one of his films.
Rather, it's a consensus among those for whom the matter is relevant. It
is blindingly clear to me what this consensus is in the case of Tabbie's
stance on 'alot'.
>I welcome the exploration of the parallels between "alot" and
>the many compound words we have already accepted.
Nothing wrong there, we do that sort of thing a lot.
>And it's fun
>to see the language bigots adopt a mob mentality.
Wrong gratuitous insult. 'Bigot' just means 'somebody who disagrees with
you' in that context. At least if you'd said 'language Nazis', the
thread would be Officially Dead and we could get on with something
interesting.
>They surround
>the perceived weak intruder, but are quite unable to
>contradict her simple arguments, and resort to
>stating the obvious: that "alot" is not sanctioned
>by dictionaries, and its users risk the scorn of the wiser.
There have been many straightforward and well-thought-out contradictions
to her 'simple arguments'. You must have missed them. This simple
argument that you refer to is, of course, that she uses it, so it's a
word. I fail to understand your scornful reference to dictionaries. Most
dictionaries record usage, and if they generally don't accept it, that
means to me that it's generally unacceptable.
Don't underestimate the power of scorn, either. There are many people
who form opinions based on the ability of others to express themselves
in writing. You may insist on your right to use 'alot', but in doing so,
you adversely influence your readers.
In particular, in a.u.e, one of the things we try to do is write well
whatever we're writing about. If you offer opinions about the usage of
English and use poor English to do so, most people will suspect that you
might just not be worth taking notice of.
And 'alot' is one of those things that stands out in red flashing neon,
with a klaxon in case you miss it. It grates for most careful users of
the language, and it's this that dictionaries are reflecting when they
refuse to acknowledge it as a word. This may not always be the case, but
at present, that's the way it is.
-ler
K1912
>**Please note Spam Trap** On 6 Nov 1998 23:13:00 GMT,
>k1...@aol.com (K1912) in
><19981106181300...@ng106.aol.com> wrote
>
>|George, who has just remembered Richard Armor's:
>|
>| Shake and shake the ketchup bottle,
>| None will come and then alot'll.
>
>Oh dear. I hang my head in shame, but here it is. For years and
>years and years, my own words to the song "Pettin' in the Park"
>(from the Busby Berkeley film _42nd Street_) have buzzed through
>my head. The original goes something like "Pettin' in the park,
>oh no, ... first you pet a little, then you pet alot'll". My
>version is "Poopin' on the Pot", and I'll leave it to your
>scatological minds to figure out the lyric.
Mark, are sure you haven't also been subconsciously influenced by the film
_Bombs Over Tokyo_?
George
K1912
K1912
>K1912 wrote in message >
>>George, who has just remembered Richard Armor's:
>>
>> Shake and shake the ketchup bottle,
>> None will come and then alot'll.
>>
>>
>>
>
>My wife has it as :
>
> If you do not shake the bottle...
>
>which seems more accurate.
>
>
No, no. If you do *not* shake the ketchup bottle, none will come atall'll.
George
K1912
Truly Donovan
>They surround
>the perceived weak intruder, but are quite unable to
>contradict her simple arguments, and resort to
>stating the obvious: that "alot" is not sanctioned
>by dictionaries, and its users risk the scorn of the wiser.
What you call "stating the obvious" is a point that is very often
misunderstood by people who defend usages such as "alot" by saying
"it's not illiterate," or, in this particular instance, "illiterate,
my arse."
It's quite true that many people here will simply rail against the
usage as some sort of crime against humanity, but at least one person
(okay, this one person), if not more, has pointed out that the scorn
that is risked is not the scorn of the "wiser" but the scorn of the
*reader*, and this may well be at the cost of successfully
communicating one's message.
This simple argument has been ignored by our alot-defender, who isn't
interested in being read by the people considered stubborn and foolish
over this usage, so it really ceases to be a discussion of interest.
Not to mention that the offered simple arguments (the instincts of
children in primary schools, the allegedly parallel case of "an
other") are merest conjectures, and one could as easily conjecture the
opposite, as many of us did.
If this be language bigotry, sign me up.
Truly Donovan
>In article <3644ea37...@news3.ibm.net>, tr...@lunemere.com wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 1998 10:39:34 +1100, "Tabbie" <Tab...@bigpond.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >And do you all have similar objections to "another" ?
>>
>> Inasmuch as no one is going to dismiss my writing as illiterate if I
>> have occasion to write, say, "do you want another cookie," but some
>> people might find it disturbing if I were to write "do you want an
>> other cookie," no.
>>
>> If this was an argument in support of "alot," it failed for lack of
>> parallelity.
>
>You have successfully identified the difference. But is the difference
>any more than timing. How could you not see the parallel?
But timing is everything. The question is whether or not "alot" is
considered illiterate. Tabbie says it isn't illiterate and offers as a
proof of that that many people use it; Tabbie does not acknowledge the
possibility of widespread error.
However, if one is writing in the hope and expectation that one's
message will be successfully communicated to one's hoped-for audience,
adopting as a convention the use of widespread error is quite likely
to hinder one's progress toward that goal.
Tabbie doesn't give a shit about that because those people are
stubborn and foolish and therefore not among Tabbie's intended
audience. That's fine for Tabbie, but let's not for a moment think it
is fine for someone who is struggling to write a resume that will get
them a job interview despite their having slept through all those
English classes.
>
>The argument for "alot" as I understood it was simply that
>the same forces that have pushed together many words are
>at play in one sense of "a lot". I see no reason to resist "alot",
>or to think less of people who use it, particularly in
>a playful setting such as this.
This playful setting is used by some people as a source for learning
how to communicate with a broad audience of readers while minimizing
the risk of contaminating their message with usages that will cause
the reader to reconsider the validity of the message. One aspect of
that process is knowing what usages are "accepted" and what usages are
not, using as a definition of "accepted" those usages that are
considered correct by professional publishers and editors, which in
turn tends to establish the general standards of correctness for the
reading public to the extent that it is even aware of such standards.
Please don't tell me, "But Usenet is different." I frankly don't care
if some people think that Usenet is different and therefore a more lax
standard is appropriate, because our subject here is not
alt.language.usenet but alt.language.english.
Not to mention that, as a reader of Usenet, I am just as put off by
illiterate usages such as "alot," as I am as a reader of a great many
other things. The only thing Usenet teaches us in this regard is to
not expect much.
The fundamental process remains: If this person doesn't know that "a
lot" is two words (and especially if this same person doesn't know
that when you refer to a word rather than use it, it should be
enclosed in quotation marks) then perhaps it is time to also question
this person's knowledge of the topic being discussed.
One "alot" does not an illiterate make, but the cumulative effect of a
lot of "alots" and its cousins does.
Truly Donovan
You've left me in a real quandary because I simply can't respond to a
question about its being "alright" to use it.
Okay, I just took two aspirin and I should be able to handle it now.
It is of course okay to use it and of course okay to encourage its use
if you understand and are willing to accept the consequences thereof
(such as being thought illiterate). What you and Tabbie are whining
about, however, is that there are such consequences, which makes you
pretty inept linguistic freedom riders. What many people in this group
strive to do is warn writer wannabes that the risks of linguistic
freedom riding are sometimes not worth the freedoms gained, and the
advantages to the well-being of the world's English-speaking
population of the loss of a space between one article and one word may
not be worth the trouble.
Henry Tickner
<na...@somewhere.sam> writes
I'm with 354593d2 (may I call you 354?) on the choice between "who" and
"that". Dictionaries permit many usages which I don't care to avail
myself of, and "that" for people is one of them.
--
Henry Tickner
The 'nospam' is my ISP's domain, the 'boudoir' is mine.
Fred Louder
Robert Lieblich
>Never saw her write it down. Given, however, that she used it as an
>adjective, I'd vote for my spelling.
>
>Okay, okay, it's been at least a year since I last mentioned it. She
>used it to mean "greedy" or "grasping," but I don't think it was an
>unconscious portmanteau of "craven" and "ravenous." It's been several
>years now, and I lack the nerve to ask her. (She's a divorce lawyer.)
>
Craving (part.) + ravenous, perhaps? Sounds like a word with great
possibilities in divorce proceedings, considering how some parties behave.
Regards,
Fred Louder
Larry Phillips
wrote:
>
>K1912 wrote in message >
>>George, who has just remembered Richard Armor's:
>>
>> Shake and shake the ketchup bottle,
>> None will come and then alot'll.
>My wife has it as :
>
> If you do not shake the bottle...
>
>which seems more accurate.
Armor had it right. Ketchup is thixotropic.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
When life looks like Easy Street, there is danger at your door.
-- Grateful Dead
http://cr347197-a.surrey1.bc.wave.home.com/larry/
Golgo13
> The article-plus-noun argument is a reasonable one against it,
> but in "I go to the theatre a lot", "a lot" can be
> considered a single semantic entity synonymous with "often".
Perhaps you can consider "a lot" to be a "single semantic entity,"
whatever that might be, but I certainly can't:
A little. A lot. A few. A lot.
This is clear, hence there is no need to press makeshift terminology
into service to explain the illiteracism of "alot." Nearly every
standard English dictionary begins with a preface, and, normally, these
introductions will make an apologia at some point for the vagaries of
English spelling. They reinforce the notion that "spelling ain't logical
- and it ain't easy, but you gotta learn it anyway." Most of us make the
effort.
And by the way, isn't a.u.e. alt.english.usage? It isn't
alt.english.neologism or alt.english.spelling.reform. This isn't the
forum in which to promote novel spellings or advocate spelling reform. I
would imagine that this group is intended to further our knowledge of
correct usage, etymology, and lexicography, among other things. This
does happen to be a place where a question can be asked; the
considerable size of the combined readership's libraries means that
there's a good chance a correct answer will be forthcoming, but above
all the answer will be defensible. Tabbie's dubious recommendation has
nothing to support it beyond an infantile churlishness. While this
attitude is both immature and wrong, I doubt persuasive commentary will
effect a change in it.
DLS
--
D. Sosnoski
gol...@mindspring.com
Res ipsa loquitor.
Paul Draper
Golgo13 wrote in message <1di472e.126u3m91g8w2veN@user->
>
>And by the way, isn't a.u.e. alt.english.usage? It isn't
>alt.english.neologism or alt.english.spelling.reform. This isn't the
>forum in which to promote novel spellings or advocate spelling reform. I
>would imagine that this group is intended to further our knowledge of
>correct usage, etymology, and lexicography, among other things. This
>does happen to be a place where a question can be asked; the
>considerable size of the combined readership's libraries means that
>there's a good chance a correct answer will be forthcoming, but above
>all the answer will be defensible. Tabbie's dubious recommendation has
>nothing to support it beyond an infantile churlishness. While this
>attitude is both immature and wrong, I doubt persuasive commentary will
>effect a change in it.
Yes, although I agree that Tabbie is wrong in promoting the word 'alot' this
is alt.english.usage and not alt.english.correct_usage. We must report and
comment on English usage as it is and not as we would wish it to be. For
what it's worth I have never come across Tabbie's spelling outside of this
thread and would not consider it correct until I found it in one of the
better newspapers (I realise this may cause further debate!).
Please forgive any typos or grammatical errors in this missive but I am on
the wrong side (for communication at least) of six pints of Goose bitter.
Paul Draper
0171 369 2754
pdr...@baig.co.uk
Albert Marshall
>In article <3643e944...@news3.ibm.net>, tr...@lunemere.com wrote:
>
>> >A lot - meaning one single "lot" of something is different to "alot" meaning
>> >heaps of something eg: "he likes her alot" is like saying "he likes her
>> >heaps" not "his liking for her is equal to one division/share/allotment".
>>
>> Oh, good grief -- now we're being told that "alot" is correct and "a
>> lot" meaning "a great deal" is wrong and all of the people who have
>> used it that way for centuries were mistaken.
>
>I understood the argument to be that in the cases where "alot"
>is proposed as an alternative to "a lot", that is where it
>means "a good deal" or "often", the word "lot" has a meaning
>not consistent with its meaning in isolated use.
Which "meaning in isolated use" are you thinking of? I don't remember
ever seeing the word "lot" in the singular without an accompanying
article, either definite or indefinite.
One meaning of "the lot" in UK English is "the whole thing" or "the full
monte". This links very well with "a lot" meaning a large amount.
>"Lot"
>only means "large amount" when used with "a" (or in the plural).
>
It is not uncommon to hear the jocular usage "a big lot" or "a little
lot", at least in my corner of the world.
<...>
--
Albert Marshall
Visual Solutions
Kent, England
01634 400902
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
One is torn between deserach and ponderap as nouns for this stuff.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
wrote:
>
>Armor had it right. Ketchup is thixotropic.
>
Ketchup's no catch-up; Armor's unlovely.
Paul Draper
Truly Donovan
wrote:
>This
>does happen to be a place where a question can be asked; the
>considerable size of the combined readership's libraries means that
>there's a good chance a correct answer will be forthcoming,
Sometimes you get the correct answer because the people responding are
primary sources.