NationStates Jolt Archive

Or do you just write "a lot?"

"alot" is not a word. "a lot" is.

Or do you just write "a lot?"
You just write a lot. And then some.

a lot = many
allot = to distribute or apportion

there is not "alot"

When proly is declared to be a word, then I'll accept alot as being one.

Fair enough. I always say "alot." Don't know where I picked that up.

When proly is declared to be a word, then I'll accept alot as being one.
Proly is a dyslexic parrot :P

Yes, in the same way that I'm a selfless philanthropist, Praetor is a newb, and Max Barry is a good writer. (Just kidding Max. :p)

Fair enough. I always say "alot." Don't know where I picked that up.
You can say it in spoken English, but definitely not in formal, written English.

Proly is a dyslexic parrot :P
Proly want a cracker? :p

Proly want a cracker? :p
Proly want a cacker.

Proly want a cacker.

NS forum-goers suddenly discover who Bush's speech writer is.

NS forum-goers suddenly discover who Bush's speech writer is.
lol have you seen the Presidential Speechalist flash video?

NS forum-goers suddenly discover who Bush's speech writer is.
I likens these Islamicisists to fascism, communism, and others totalitarianisms.

You've caught me.

lol have you seen the Presidential Speechalist flash video?

I don't think so.

While we're on the topic of grammar, is "'s" used for possessives? Like "Dave's spanner?" Or is it only for contractions?

I don't think so.

While we're on the topic of grammar, is "'s" used for possessives? Like "Dave's spanner?" Or is it only for contractions?
Yes, it is used for them too.

http://gprime.net/video.php/presidentialspeechalist

While we're on the topic of grammar, is "'s" used for possessives? Like "Dave's spanner?" Or is it only for contractions?
Dude, that's something I learned in second grade, with my third English class...

When proly is declared to be a word, then I'll accept alot as being one.

proly is too a word

*runs to room to sob*

http://gprime.net/video.php/presidentialspeechalist

XFD

Dude, that's something I learned in second grade, with my third English class...

See my topic about primary school. >_<

"Alot" is not a word.

proly is too a word

*runs to room to sob*
Got an issue? Well here's a tissue. XD

See my topic about primary school. >_<
I actually have, and posted:
"Ours sucks".

In retrospect now... no, it does not.

I even think that 's for "contractions" is a poor excuse for someone who didn't use the apostrophe for possessives.

I actually have, and posted:
"Ours sucks".

In retrospect now... no, it does not.

I even think that 's for "contractions" is a poor excuse for someone who didn't use the apostrophe for possessives.

I did use ' for possessives. I just thought that I was wrong.

"alot" is not a word. "a lot" is.
No it is not, it is two words

I did use ' for possessives. I just thought that I was wrong.
I didn't mean you. I meant the one who introduced the"contractions" excuse. I have been into English for "proly" 15 years by now, but "contractions" as an excuse only surfaced sometime in the last two years.

"alot" is not a word. "a lot" is.
Actually, "a lot" is two words, since we are picking our nits ;)

Doh! Beaten by two posts :(

a lot = many
allot = to distribute or apportion

there is no "alot"
I second that.

And my online dictionary doesn't have 'proly' - but it has "'prolly' adv. - corrupted spelling of 'probably' [sl.]"

I don't think so.

While we're on the topic of grammar, is "'s" used for possessives? Like "Dave's spanner?" Or is it only for contractions?
Both, except in the case of its and it's in which you have to guess which one is right for which.

lol have you seen the Presidential Speechalist flash video?
I just watched that - thanks for the link. (And boy am I glad I still have IE on my PC, that way I can download it as well and send it around the world via eMail :D)

Both, except in the case of its and it's in which you have to guess which one is right for which.
English is great. Although, sometimes its grammar is not easy. Then again, it's not meant to be! :D

I was always taught that " alot" is not a word, nor is " a lot" in the sense of it meaning many or several.

~Alan Smithee
Director of Exit~

I just watched that - thanks for the link. (And boy am I glad I still have IE on my PC, that way I can download it as well and send it around the world via eMail :D)
It's one of the funniest things I've seen online in a long time. :p

It's one of the funniest things I've seen online in a long time. :p
And you're right! It's really nicely done.

You can say it in spoken English, but definitely not in formal, written English.
You can say it and write it but not as one word. "There are a lot of fish in the ocean," is perfectly fine to say and to write.

You can say it and write it but not as one word. "There are a lot of fish in the ocean," is perfectly fine to say and to write.
Indeed. What I meant is, it is unlikely someone will scold you for using it in the spoken form.

Indeed. What I meant is, it is unlikely someone will scold you for using it in the spoken form.
Anyone who would scold you for writing it needs to have Jeebs come and rip the golden spoon out of his/her ass. It's perfectly accepted written/oral English, at least here in the states.

Anyone who would scold you for writing it needs to have Jeebs come and rip the golden spoon out of his/her ass. It's perfectly accepted written/oral English, at least here in the states.
Not in Britain though. Particularly important when you are writing exams.

While we're on the topic of grammar, is "'s" used for possessives? Like "Dave's spanner?" Or is it only for contractions?

Technically (fear that word!) I think possessives are actually, or rather, were originally contractions, too. You still see, in some books, things like 'my lord his brother', which would then be contracted to 'my lord's brother'.

Alternately, they could be a particularly odd form of genitive case, but English isn't a very cased language. We tend to use word-arounds instead. So I'm voting for contraction that became so universal no-one remembered the original.

And as someone mentioned it: pronouns work differently. His, her and its don't need apostrophes, but he's, she's and it's do. It's not just guesswork (although God forbid anyone should tell us that...)

No, "alot" is never, ever a word.

"alot" is not a word. "a lot" is.

No, 'a lot' is two words.

Not that two words is a lot.

Nor indeed, alot.

Sorry.

no

the correct way to convey that which you said is "a lot"

Not in Britain though. Particularly important when you are writing exams.

No, but then "golden spoon out of his/her ass" would refer to removing a utensil from a mule, and you should not bring a mule into an exam room.

Its against the rules.

current peeve:

cannot is one word.

i can't tell you how much the sight of "can not" in the office pisses me off. I want to push for English testing before employees are admitted...

No, but then "golden spoon out of his/her ass" would refer to removing a utensil from a mule, and you should not bring a mule into an exam room.

Its against the rules.

in the case of "his/her" we were (in J school) advised to pick one and stick with it -- either his or her.

example:

Everybody wants his tea on time. (remembering that everybody is singular)

Originally Posted by Kievan-Prussia
While we're on the topic of grammar, is "'s" used for possessives? Like "Dave's spanner?" Or is it only for contractions?

Kievan-Prussia
Apostrophes are used in contractions (to take the place of a letter or letters in a word or phrase) and to show ownership:

I can't (cannot) go to work today.

The dog's bone is disgusting.



Do not use an apostrophe when referring to a decade.

You would not write eighty's (the plural of "eighty" is "eighties")... so don't write 80's. The correct representation is 80s.

or... actually could be correctly represented by '80s -- the apostrophe taking the place of 19 in 1980s.

No, but then "golden spoon out of his/her ass" would refer to removing a utensil from a mule, and you should not bring a mule into an exam room.

Its against the rules.
Hahahahahahahahaha! I laughed out loud at that. :p

Hahahahahahahahaha! I laughed out loud at that. :p

Thank you.

I am glad to have lightened your day.

Given the definition of "word" - A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.


Yes, yes it is.

Given the definition of "word" - A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.


Yes, yes it is.

Sir,

Did you write that to make my first post on the previous page seem less pedantic?

Thank you.

Collect a tip from my valet.

OMG, the dictionary contradicted itself! RUN!
*dives for cover*

OMG, the dictionary contradicted itself! RUN!
*dives for cover*

Sorry?

Given the definition of "word" - A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.


Yes, yes it is.

...but incorrect usage. The correct way to say that is "a lot". (MLA geeks, I'm putting the period outside of the end quotation because it is not part of the phrase "a lot" -- something i've got on my list of things to accomplish is to get that through the greater grammar brains of this language)

Given the definition of "word" - A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.


Yes, yes it is.
No, no, it isn't for it does not convey meaning. "Alot" doesn't mean anything in the English language.

No, no, it isn't for it does not convey meaning. "Alot" doesn't mean anything in the English language.
one of the beauties of the English language is it allows for new words and change of spelling. If you want to demand no change, try reading Beowolf in the original English. Shakespeare (who by the way spelt his own name different ways) constantly invented new words and new uses of old words. All that matters is if an idea gets from one brain to another.

Is "alot" a word?

[calls in Chuck Norris for a roundhouse kick to the face]

[calls in Jack Bower for an eternity of torture]

NONONONONONO.

No, no, it isn't for it does not convey meaning. "Alot" doesn't mean anything in the English language.
Really, so when presented with the symbols 'alot' arranged as such ,you cannot decipher their meaning? The question did not ask for correct usage, rather it asked if alot was a word, which it is. Now, it's not correct grammatically, but that's another issue entirely.

"alot" is not a word. "a lot" is.

NO!!!
Insolent fool.
A lot is TWO words!! HAHAHAHAHA
VICTORY IS MINE!

It's perfectly accepted written/oral English, at least here in the states.

It most certainly is not. "Alot" is not a word, no matter how many 12-year-olds on Instant Messenger want it to be. Perhaps in a hundred years English will have evolved such that "alot" appears in dictionaries, but it isn't there yet. (And I, for one, am glad.)

It most certainly is not. "Alot" is not a word, no matter how many 12-year-olds on Instant Messenger want it to be. Perhaps in a hundred years English will have evolved such that "alot" appears in dictionaries, but it isn't there yet. (And I, for one, am glad.)
I give it less than 20.

Or do you just write "a lot?"

ALOT is an acronym, and acronyms are accepted as words by the OED.
http://www.acronymfinder.com/af-query.asp?Acronym=ALOT&p=dict

And as to the other dispute, "a lot" is not a single word, but a phrasal adverb, or an adverb consisting of an adverb plus another word.

And just for Ravenshrike, who's definition comes from here I believe: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=word, here is a proper linguistics definition of "word":
A word is a unit which is a constituent at the phrase level and above. It is sometimes identifiable according to such criteria as


* being the minimal possible unit in a reply
*

having features such as
o a regular stress pattern, and
o phonological changes conditioned by or blocked at word boundaries
* being the largest unit resistant to insertion of new constituents within its boundaries, or
* being the smallest constituent that can be moved within a sentence without making the sentence ungrammatical.

A word is sometimes placed, in a hierarchy of grammatical constituents, above the morpheme level and below the phrase level.
Kinds
http://www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryofLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAWord.htm

I give it less than 20.

*shudder*

I'm all for the natural evolution of language, but I hate to see it apparently regressing...

Really, so when presented with the symbols 'alot' arranged as such, you cannot decipher their meaning? The question did not ask for correct usage, rather it asked if alot was a word, which it is. Now, it's not correct grammatically, but that's another issue entirely.
I see "alot" as four letters arranged as a conglomerate without sense. It's only a word when it carries meaning - so no, it won't decipher (the acronym-business left aside).

If I follow your argumentation "cugarinom™" would be a word as well - but it doesn't carry meaning which is a prerequisite to make it count as a word. That's how I learned it in my English linguist courses...

So, unless you give "alot" a meaning and that meaning is clear to all speakers of English (apart from the obvious that people will think you can't spell) and thus finds its way into the dictionaries - not a chance.

I see "alot" as four letters arranged as a conglomerate without sense. It's only a word when it carries meaning - so no, it won't decipher (the acronym-business left aside).

If I follow your argumentation "cugarinom™" would be a word as well - but it doesn't carry meaning which is a prerequisite to make it count as a word. That's how I learned it in my English linguist courses...

So, unless you give "alot" a meaning and that meaning is clear to all speakers of English (apart from the obvious that people will think you can't spell) and thus finds its way into the dictionaries - not a chance.
Dictionaries are at best historical. They are always behind usage. Before dictionaries no one cared about spelling. People even spelled their own names differently in the same document. The point of words is to move a concept from one mind to another. If that happens, the symbol used is irrelevent. The problem becomes when the receiver is so hung up on spelling that their mind focuses on the spelling and not the message.

Words come from many sources. Acronyms are one: SWAT, TGIF, AWOL, NASA, etc. Brand names are another: Asprin, elevator, esculator, coke, etc. Teen talk has always been a source, as well as crime, as well as lower class speech, as well as the military, etc.

As long as two people can pass a message from one mind to another, it is a word. An entire population need not know the meaning. How many English speakers know the word "guenon"? I didn't until I randomly picked it from the dictionary. That doesn't mean it's not an English language word.

Words can come and go. Especially in youth talk. I remember when I was young "groceries" meant drugs. As in "I need to get more groceries". "Silver Bullet" was a male virgin. It was really funny when Coors Beer came out with their advertising campaign "Go Get A Silver Bullet Tonight".

If they stick long enough to become tradition they make it to the dictionary. But that just means they existed long before that.

Both, except in the case of its and it's in which you have to guess which one is right for which.No need to guess. I was always confused until someone else pointed out to me that the "its" possessive belonged to the following 'elemental' possessives that also dont bother with apostrophes:

my, our[1], your, their, his, hers...

Thus, knowing the above, you are free to use the contraction of "it is" with an apostrophe with surity in your mind that exception to the rule is the possessive of "it", which doesn't need one for the exact same reason you don't say "hi's" or even (especially) "my's".


[1] And obviously variants, like "ours", where "that is our house" can be said as "that house is ours", still without an apostrophe but following some grammatical rule that "yours" and "theirs" also can in the same context and that makes "my"=>"mine" and keeps "his/hers" the same, but I don't want to muddy the waters unduly...

Yes, it is used for them too.

http://gprime.net/video.php/presidentialspeechalist
Hahaha. Oh dear, thanks for that.

Dictionaries are at best historical. They are always behind usage. Before dictionaries no one cared about spelling. People even spelled their own names differently in the same document. The point of words is to move a concept from one mind to another. If that happens, the symbol used is irrelevent. The problem becomes when the receiver is so hung up on spelling that their mind focuses on the spelling and not the message.

Words come from many sources. Acronyms are one: SWAT, TGIF, AWOL, NASA, etc. Brand names are another: Asprin, elevator, esculator, coke, etc. Teen talk has always been a source, as well as crime, as well as lower class speech, as well as the military, etc.

As long as two people can pass a message from one mind to another, it is a word. An entire population need not know the meaning. How many English speakers know the word "guenon"? I didn't until I randomly picked it from the dictionary. That doesn't mean it's not an English language word.

Words can come and go. Especially in youth talk. I remember when I was young "groceries" meant drugs. As in "I need to get more groceries". "Silver Bullet" was a male virgin. It was really funny when Coors Beer came out with their advertising campaign "Go Get A Silver Bullet Tonight".

If they stick long enough to become tradition they make it to the dictionary. But that just means they existed long before that.
You've made some valid points that I can accept, so thanks for the post.

I usually don't have any problems understanding spoken language (well, most of the time, that is) but when it comes to written language (not talking 'bout typos) and especially eyesores like the all-too-common they're/their/there etc. mistakes are definitely getting in the way of understanding the meaning.
And English, being as versatile as it is, has many many words that are alike and when switching a single letter makes it mean something completely different, it becomes really difficult.

(Besides -don't laugh, now!- I'm using NS to keep my English communication skills up and I easily spot mistakes while reading posts, and every mistake makes my fluent reading "stutter". Same goes for German, especially with the newly introduced orthography which sometimes differs a lot from what I've learned in school... I read over the same, "wrong" word several times before my mind goes on reading.)

Merriam-Webster says, "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. "

It's not in the Online Slang Dictionary.

It is in the Urban Dictionary.
1) The retarded way to spell "a lot."
2) A non-existent word in any language.
3) Illiterate spelling of a lot.
4) A word that actually exists; but since it isn't found in dictionaries it drives people up the wall. A combination of "a" and "lot."

But that doesn't say much, in fact it doesn't say a lot about "alot."

I meant, above, to insert my own opinions about the main issue...

"alot" is as much a word as either "abunch" or "acar" might be[1], when written down, i.e. done so with disregard of the space bar. Or a mistyping of "allot". As for "is it Ok to say 'alot'?", you can't really tell the difference between "a lot", "alot" and "allot" when vocalised, at least in my experience. Certainly not relative to the way you can hear other 'badly learnt' grammar.

e.g. Someone (in all seriousness) saying "I should of turned left, back there" instead of "I should have turned left, back there", where the speaker, or a prior generation from whom their speach was learnt, had incorrectly interpreted the standard contraction "could've". Even with the argument that "language changes with time", there isn't any real excuse for accepting it as a standard grammatical construct. The best you can hope for is that it is accepted as dialect variation.

Since the invention of printing, and perhaps with a bit of artificial poking and proding by (frexample[2]) the self-proclaimed "grammar saviours" of the Victorian age that isn't totally agreed as 'solid' (split infinatives, anyone?), the core of the English language has been standardised and while regional/national variations exist, common expectations exist. One of those expectations is that in formal writing you don't get (except where quoting words spoken/written elsewhere or making a point) such things as 1337-5p34k, contractions like alot, and a variety of other oddities... (e.g. frexample, as noted below, or 'bout, which also don't sound significantly different from their formal versions when spoken.)

This does not mean that language is stagnant, but it stops it from diversifying into pidgin and creole languages at the drop of a hat (there's nothing wrong with pidgins and creoles, but their proper place is in the development and formalisation of new common languages from the collision of peoples with mixed linguistic roots) and yet allows accent and interpretation and innovation and addition of neologisms as they naturally occur.

[1] In the first case assuming 'lot' was in the context of a vague numerical description, the other a description of 'something' (e.g. plot of land or auction item)
[2] Couldn't resist slipping that favourite non-standard contraction in, but don't expect it to be put in any dictionaries... ;)

current peeve:

cannot is one word.

I can't tell you how much the sight of "can not" in the office pisses me off. I want to push for English testing before employees are admitted...
You can not be serious! :p





There's nothing wrong with can not, I think it's more formal or when quoting speech it shows a mood and emphasis "You can not be serious!" the "not" is emphasised and it shows anger.

Or do you just write "a lot?"

"ALOT" is an acronym... It stands for two things:

1. ALOT : Adaptive Large Optics Technologies
2. ALOT : Airborne Lightweight Optical Tracking

It is also a bankers abbreviation for ALLOTMENT

This all brings an interesting speculation. Will English eventually break into separate languages?

At the time of the American Revolution it was believed that every nation needed it's own language. For that reason, Americans purposely started changing spellings, color-colour, etc. But, because the new nation was still so economically tied to the UK it never worked. Or did it? There is as much difference between UK English and American English as there is between Swedish and Norwegian or Portugese and Spanish. Yet they are considered separate out of the tradition that different nations must have different languages.

But the question still is: Will English split into separate languages as Latin did or will world-wide communications bring about a unity of the dialects of English?

alot is not a word, and neither is a lot. It's two...

This all brings an interesting speculation. Will English eventually break into separate languages?

At the time of the American Revolution it was believed that every nation needed it's own language. For that reason, Americans purposely started changing spellings, color-colour, etc. But, because the new nation was still so economically tied to the UK it never worked. Or did it? There is as much difference between UK English and American English as there is between Swedish and Norwegian or Portugese and Spanish. Yet they are considered separate out of the tradition that different nations must have different languages.

But the question still is: Will English split into separate languages as Latin did or will world-wide communications bring about a unity of the dialects of English?


Good point.

Though America has American and England has English.

The difference is obvious to me!

I meant, above, to insert my own opinions about the main issue...

"alot" is as much a word as either "abunch" or "acar" might be[1], when written down, i.e. done so with disregard of the space bar. Or a mistyping of "allot". As for "is it Ok to say 'alot'?", you can't really tell the difference between "a lot", "alot" and "allot" when vocalised, at least in my experience. Certainly not relative to the way you can hear other 'badly learnt' grammar.

e.g. Someone (in all seriousness) saying "I should of turned left, back there" instead of "I should have turned left, back there", where the speaker, or a prior generation from whom their speach was learnt, had incorrectly interpreted the standard contraction "could've". Even with the argument that "language changes with time", there isn't any real excuse for accepting it as a standard grammatical construct. The best you can hope for is that it is accepted as dialect variation.

Since the invention of printing, and perhaps with a bit of artificial poking and proding by (frexample[2]) the self-proclaimed "grammar saviours" of the Victorian age that isn't totally agreed as 'solid' (split infinatives, anyone?), the core of the English language has been standardised and while regional/national variations exist, common expectations exist. One of those expectations is that in formal writing you don't get (except where quoting words spoken/written elsewhere or making a point) such things as 1337-5p34k, contractions like alot, and a variety of other oddities... (e.g. frexample, as noted below, or 'bout, which also don't sound significantly different from their formal versions when spoken.)

This does not mean that language is stagnant, but it stops it from diversifying into pidgin and creole languages at the drop of a hat (there's nothing wrong with pidgins and creoles, but their proper place is in the development and formalisation of new common languages from the collision of peoples with mixed linguistic roots) and yet allows accent and interpretation and innovation and addition of neologisms as they naturally occur.

[1] In the first case assuming 'lot' was in the context of a vague numerical description, the other a description of 'something' (e.g. plot of land or auction item)
[2] Couldn't resist slipping that favourite non-standard contraction in, but don't expect it to be put in any dictionaries... ;)
Excellent post and a sound read! http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/jap.gif

Acronyms are one: SWAT, TGIF, AWOL, NASA, etc.

TGIF is an initialism, not an acronym, as on says prononces it as the individual letters, not as a distinct word. (My source for that is the OED.) The only nit in an otherwise excellent post. :cool:

"ALOT" is an acronym... It stands for two things:

1. ALOT : Adaptive Large Optics Technologies
2. ALOT : Airborne Lightweight Optical Tracking

It is also a bankers abbreviation for ALLOTMENT

Noted 10 posts before. ;)

This all brings an interesting speculation. Will English eventually break into separate languages?

That's entierly possible, especially when you take the various creoles and "ishes" (Singlish, Benglish) into consideration.

in the case of "his/her" we were (in J school) advised to pick one and stick with it -- either his or her.

example:

Everybody wants his tea on time. (remembering that everybody is singular)

I have opted for option 3, which is to use their for both singular and plural. Sometimes, I do use one, but it often seems stuffy in conversation.

I have opted for option 3, which is to use their for both singular and plural. Sometimes, I do use one, but it often seems stuffy in conversation.I favour a singular 'their', myself, but I've heard some decent reasoning against it that (if I could only remember it) might have stopped me from my persistent usage of said... ;)

(Besides -don't laugh, now!- I'm using NS to keep my English communication skills up and I easily spot mistakes while reading posts, and every mistake makes my fluent reading "stutter". Same goes for German, especially with the newly introduced orthography which sometimes differs a lot from what I've learned in school... I read over the same, "wrong" word several times before my mind goes on reading.)

This is why a sender must always consider the receiver. If one is communicating with another who doesn't use the language as a first language, the sender needs to be more careful.

This is also true if one is applying for a job or using business communications. You are judged by language. People will decide if your product is good based on your use of language. This is when mistakes become noise.

But, in an informal setting, spelling and exacting language make no difference as long as the message gets from one mind to another.