49 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
49 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Is "Alot" a Word?

by Kurt
39 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Here's a question for you writing experts, is "alot" a word?

I swear when I was in elementary school that "alot" was a word, and it was spelled with one "l".

However, since I've had a computer and used spell checkers, it seems I'm corrected that it should be "a lot". I also see some other people using "allot".

IMO, both of those options already have different meanings:

allot = allotment

a lot = "lot" is a word to describe multple items, such as I bought a "lot of 12 wrenches on eBay".

I feel if "alot" isn't correct, it should be. It's a good word and I like it alot.
  • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
    Kurt, you won't find alot in spell checkers because the writers' union has successfully campaigned to delete it from the records. With the pay-per-word rate of written content being driven ever downwards, perfectly useful words are under constant attack in order to increase writers' revenue.

    Now that they've succeeded in getting a lot separated into two words, the writers have set their sights on targets such as: a ground, a side, a head, a drift and a mount.

    There's even a radical faction pushing for the acceptance of a band on.

    We should all resist.

    F Rank
    Signature


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083478].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Allot is a whole different word - you are right on that one.

    Alot is not correct in standard English - it is two words.

    It is used a lot, so often mistaken to be one word, and we all know what it means when used, so the mistake is usually forgiven, overlooked, or not even always realized to be a mistake.

    It's likely you did see it here and there as a kid. I'm not sure whether this used to be correct and was melted out in the same fashion other standard words evolve into nonstandard designation. An example would be the word "ain't". It used to be standard English, later to be used only by less educated speakers/writeres, finally becoming shunned as incorrect in educated circles then designated incorrect, colloquial. Even some editors might actually overlook alot. It's my guess that in a few more generations it will become a standard word.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083485].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Allot is a whole different word - you are right on that one.

      Alot is not correct in standard English - it is two words.

      It is used a lot, so often mistaken to be one word, and we all know what it means when used, so the mistake is usually forgiven, overlooked, or not even always realized to be a mistake.

      It's likely you did see it here and there as a kid. I'm not sure whether this used to be correct and was melted out in the same fashion other standard words evolve into nonstandard designation. An example would be the word "ain't". It used to be standard English, later to be used only by less educated speakers/writeres, finally becoming shunned as incorrect in educated circles then designated incorrect, colloquial. Even some editors might actually overlook alot. It's my guess that in a few more generations it will become a standard word.
      When I was in school, they said it was A LOT. TWO WORDS. As for the meaning? Sometimes a minor change will change the meaning. "A LOT" could refer to a parcel of land. "A LOT of land" could mean a parcel, or several parcels of land. "A LOT of ...." means a fair amount or larger. "DO ... A LOT" means often.

      As for "ain't"? I was taught it was improper.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083543].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Steve - ain't went out of standard usage over 100 - 150 years ago. All meanings of a lot mean more except the land parcel - and "a" is merely an article. In the usages of a lot that mean large amounts, the "a" seems to be somehow subconsciously attached as a tag morpheme to the word "lot" rather than used as the article form. This could actually be resulting from the brain's distinction between the two different meanings of the word "lot". It is a perfect example of how languages morph. I would think from the amount I see "alot" used, that it will be in standard usage in around 50 years or so.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083636].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Steve - ain't went out of standard usage over 100 - 150 years ago. All meanings of a lot mean more except the land parcel - and "a" is merely an article. In the usages of a lot that mean large amounts, the "a" seems to be somehow subconsciously attached as a tag morpheme to the word "lot" rather than used as the article form. This could actually be resulting from the brain's distinction between the two different meanings of the word "lot". It is a perfect example of how languages morph. I would think from the amount I see "alot" used, that it will be in standard usage in around 50 years or so.
      Well yeah, "A" is an article. Frankly, I think articles are under used today. If things that are popular now continue, YIKES! The language used today may in 2100 look like the language of 1700 looks to us. I agree about "alot". It was popular even when I was a kid. That is one reason I remember it so well. When I was in school they made sure to cover this. ALSO, they are teaching large groups of foreign speakers, like indians, a simplified version of english that includes some OLD structure. It is starting to affect some AMERICANS! Among the differences are an odd strict phonetic pronunciation. And they figure THEY must be right because it is phonetic! Several have told me Americans pronounce words like "determining" INCORRECTLY!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083661].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Kurt,

      "Alot" is not a word. It wasn't when I was in grade school, and that was probably around the same time as you.

      "Ain't" is most assuredly a word. It's frowned on by wombats and other high-falootin' grammar snobs, but it's a common word with a commonly understood meaning.


      Paul
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083667].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

        Kurt,

        "Alot" is not a word. It wasn't when I was in grade school, and that was probably around the same time as you.

        "Ain't" is most assuredly a word. It's frowned on by wombats and other high-falootin' grammar snobs, but it's a common word with a commonly understood meaning.


        Paul
        Ain't = colloquialism of the lower socio-economic classes. Actually how it became nonstandard usage in the first place was that the upper socioeconomic classes veered away from usage for newer and more literary terminology that morphed their speech away from the gnereal masses. However............
        Ain't is actually standard usage as an emphatic negation. Example: That AIN'T gonna happen. A morph in usage of something that was technically a socioeconomic language taboo could act to bring the word back into standard usage given time.

        Language snobs know nothing really about language other than grammar book dictates.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083845].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
          Sal,
          Ain't = colloquialism of the lower socio-economic classes.
          Phffffftthhhhhfffttt!

          Ain't THAT a beeyatch?!

          Custody of the language is not a function of economics. It's a matter of respect for the word, written or spoken.


          Paul
          Signature
          .
          Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083935].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

            Sal,Phffffftthhhhhfffttt!

            Ain't THAT a beeyatch?!

            Custody of the language is not a function of economics. It's a matter of respect for the word, written or spoken.


            Paul
            Actually - sociology cannot be separated from language. That's why grammar Nazi's are a lark. "Respect" - from whom? The people using it, or the classes of people using it to form socioeconomic boundaries from the goups that use it? There are more proscriptive rules to grammar than are overtly written in our grammar books. There are are also proscriptive rules that classify language on the subconscious level - covertly working in our social groups - all of them. That's why advertisers study the liguistic habits of their targets. Knowledge of any particular sector's linguistic habits (descriptive grammar, etc) can allow them to build automatic trust within their market. Make a mistake, though, and it can nail you hard. And that AIN'T no shyte.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083968].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
              Sal,
              Actually - sociology cannot be separated from language.
              Sure it can. By anyone who's willing to do their own thinking. Like you, for example.

              Note that I said economics, which is only part of sociology. It has always been the case that the masses drive lingual shifts. The wombats try, but they're doomed to fail, as most non-technical words are added by common usage. They're not invented by a committee or commission.

              The comments in dictionaries that suggest words like "ain't" are 'disparaged' usages are, at best, an attempt to maintain the idea that the language has an elite set of protectors. In reality, the protectors are the writers who choose which words will best communicate their intent to a reading market.

              This falls in line with your comments about advertisers.


              Paul
              Signature
              .
              Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085352].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

                Sal,Sure it can. By anyone who's willing to do their own thinking. Like you, for example.

                Note that I said economics, which is only part of sociology. It has always been the case that the masses drive lingual shifts. The wombats try, but they're doomed to fail, as most non-technical words are added by common usage. They're not invented by a committee or commission.

                The comments in dictionaries that suggest words like "ain't" are 'disparaged' usages are, at best, an attempt to maintain the idea that the language has an elite set of protectors. In reality, the protectors are the writers who choose which words will best communicate their intent to a reading market.

                This falls in line with your comments about advertisers.


                Paul
                Dictionaries are merely descriptive, not proscriptive. We need standard grammar rules. These rules keep people understanding each other despite the local jargon, group-speak, or register (terminology of a particular field). Without a standard form a language can change too fast and dialect groups can stray so far from the standard so rapidly that communication is impaired.

                Anyone can make up a word. Sometimes they catch on and sometimes they don't. Depends on how useful people in general find the word when they hear it.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086215].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
                  Sal,
                  Dictionaries are merely descriptive, not proscriptive. We need standard grammar rules.
                  Okay. I be kornfewzedd. What do dictionaries have to do with grammar? As I understand it, grammar is about how the words are arranged, not what they mean.

                  And yes, when a lexicographer uses terms like "lower socio-economic classes," they are being proscriptive, in a decidedly insulting way. This is an absurd phrasing, which perpetuates the silly notion that only the wealthy and "higher classes" have the intelligence to speak the language clearly.

                  Lingual snobbery.


                  Paul
                  Signature
                  .
                  Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086233].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          Ain't = colloquialism of the lower socio-economic classes. Actually how it became nonstandard usage in the first place was that the upper socioeconomic classes veered away from usage for newer and more literary terminology that morphed their speech away from the gnereal masses. However............
          Ain't is actually standard usage as an emphatic negation. Example: That AIN'T gonna happen. A morph in usage of something that was technically a socioeconomic language taboo could act to bring the word back into standard usage given time.

          Language snobs know nothing really about language other than grammar book dictates.
          In Britain, ain't is still used very regularly. That's not from a grammar book but through conversations. I literally hear it daily.
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086177].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
            Ken,
            Lexicologists are collectors, not creators. They simply reflect what is. It ain't got nothing to do what they want.
            If that were entirely the case, they'd look at overall usage and drop the pretension of putting down the usage of words by the masses.

            Any of them who use such silly euphemisms ought to be "deprecated" themselves.


            Paul
            Signature
            .
            Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086211].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    I've never known "alot" to be a word.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083798].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Y'all ain't gonna scare me from using alot alot of the times.

    Seriously, alot not being a word has been driven into my
    head so much by grammar teachers that it's one of the few
    grammatical things that makes me cringe when I see it used.

    Crik for creek used to be correct. Around 6th grade I facetiously
    used that spelling in a class, and a point was taken off the paper.
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9083860].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author celente
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    Alot is appropriate for notes passed in middle school classrooms.
    yes! Sounds like a teenager who uses the word LIKE every 4 words in their vocabulary! :rolleyes:
    Signature
    Create a $5000 USD a month Business. 1-on-1 Coaching. By 6 figure marketer! - CLICK HERE
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084003].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author barbling


    Hyperbole and a Half: The Alot is Better Than You at Everything

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084181].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    The alot must be closely related to the notme.

    Google Image Result for
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084417].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    Grammar concerns the structure of language.

    Usage concerns the appropriateness of language.

    Style concerns the effectiveness of language.

    If you want to know if something is a word, consult a dictionary. That's why God created them.
    I didn't want a definition. i wanted a convesation. But thanks, I didn't know what a dictionary was. :rolleyes:

    And please keep your religion out if this. If you don't know the rules, consult the sticky atop this forum. That's why Allen created them.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084808].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sarevok
    I've always refrained from using it.

    My elementary teachers said it wasn't a word. Good enough for me.

    Does that make me a sheeple?
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084926].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post

      I've always refrained from using it.

      My elementary teachers said it wasn't a word. Good enough for me.

      Does that make me a sheeple?
      Since it was your elementary teacher, it does not make you a sheeple . . . it makes you a lambie.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9084931].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post

      I've always refrained from using it.

      My elementary teachers said it wasn't a word. Good enough for me.

      Does that make me a sheeple?
      I dunno how old you are but since you're in here it's over 18 - and you remember your elementary teacher teaching you this little tidbit. I think what you might be called is a savant. :rolleyes:
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085174].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        I dunno how old you are but since you're in here it's over 18 - and you remember your elementary teacher teaching you this little tidbit. I think what you might be called is a savant. :rolleyes:
        OK then, call me a savant TOO! I remember "a lot" was, IMHO, OVER covered, and I DO remember a particular elementary school class teaching it, though I remember it wasn't the only one. Some stuff was just over covered. I'm a good deal older than 18. As george burns once said. I WISH I was 18 again!(Emphasis mine)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3c-WBn5cCg

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085202].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
      Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post

      Does that make me a sheeple?
      If it does, I wouldn't worry about it. There seems to be alot of sheeples.

      Joe Mobley
      Signature

      .

      Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085365].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
    Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

    Alot is appropriate for notes passed in middle school classrooms.
    Which is where I learned that 'alot' is not a word.

    After I used it in a paper and my teacher marked me down for it, I also learned that doodling "Mr. Watson is an ass." and having him see it would get me a week's worth of after-school detention.
    Signature

    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085362].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sam Zachuth
    A lot, is 2 words. I see people say "allot" or "alot", a lot... sadly.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085384].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Sam Zachuth View Post

      A lot, is 2 words. I see people say "allot" or "alot", a lot... sadly.
      Stop it! You're blowing my mind!
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9085515].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    If you look at dutch, german, scandinavian languages, you can see that they are all closely related. HECK, german to danish, I was ASTOUNDED when I found a HUGE list of words in german that started with AB that were EXACTLY the same in danish except the danish ones started with AF. I recently watched a video showing high german(what americans call german) and a regional german dialect. They had MORE of a difference than many things between german and dutch! Even AFRICAANS bears a strong similarity to dutch. And GERMAN? (AFRIKAANS) "Aparthied" (GERMAN) "Apartheit".

    I guess English is just going to change into another language. I wonder what we will call THIS one! People want to change the grammar(Danish grammar IS very different from German), spelling(Check out the scandinavian languages. they don't even have the same ALPHABET!), and meaning.

    Many languages have what they call "false friends". They may have words that look the same that are even the same type, and spelled the same, but mean something totally different

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086852].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      I guess English is just going to change into another language. I wonder what we will call THIS one! People want to change the grammar(Danish grammar IS very different from German), spelling(Check out the scandinavian languages. they don't even have the same ALPHABET!), and meaning.
      I always thought German was quite similar to English and seeing that they call the English people Anglo-Saxons, contrary to popular belief, Anglo doesn't mean English but is a Germanic tribe called the Angles who were here at the same time as another Germanic tribe, the Saxons.

      It's fair to say English as we know it has a great deal of roots in German language, as well as Latin from the Romans and Scandinavian from when the Vikings invaded.

      So you could say English has already become another language.
      Signature

      Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086884].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

        I always thought German was quite similar to English and seeing that they call the English people Anglo-Saxons, contrary to popular belief, Anglo doesn't mean English but is a Germanic tribe called the Angles who were here at the same time as another Germanic tribe, the Saxons.

        It's fair to say English as we know it has a great deal of roots in German language, as well as Latin from the Romans and Scandinavian from when the Vikings invaded.

        So you could say English has already become another language.
        RIGHT on all counts! But I meant english is morphing to something ELSE!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086961].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Richard Van
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          RIGHT on all counts! But I meant english is morphing to something ELSE!

          Steve
          I think you're right, it's been a changing language for a long, long time, I for one can't read Old English and it's not really that old compared to the language in general.
          Signature

          Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9086986].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Richard Van View Post

            I think you're right, it's been a changing language for a long, long time, I for one can't read Old English and it's not really that old compared to the language in general.
            At least old english is called old ENGLISH. It IS hard to determine when to change the name, since so many things vary greatly and are called the same, but I see some BIG changes planned. YIKES!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9087128].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author jlxseo
    I got the idea in my mind when I was little that it was alot - I still spell it like that when I'm typing fast, even though I've spelled it correctly (eg, as *two words*!) for my entire adult life.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9087028].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    I always thought Alot was a brand of candy. You know, Alot mints. Live and learn.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9087892].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Lance K
    The 2 "words" that bug me most are "alot" and "irregardless".
    Signature
    "You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want."
    ~ Zig Ziglar
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9273962].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author crookedborg
    i've had this debate in my head for a while as well haha
    alot or a lot. 'a lot' is of course the right one, but i still use 'alot' alot... :p
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9274020].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Ha!

      I'll never forget the day in school when this very question was asked in my 6th grade class. Apparently too many kids had handed in their papers with the word/not a proper word "alot" in them. So Mrs. Limbaugh asked one of the boys who had used it if it were a proper word. He answered that he thought so, but now that she mentioned it, he really wasn't quite sure.

      So at that point, Mrs. Limbaugh asked all of us to take out our dictionaries and if we found the word in there, it was proper, and if we didn't, then it wasn't.

      Well, it seems as though this one boy could care less, for he instead looked up the word "fart" which she did not allow to be used in the classroom. He found it in the dictionary and busted out laughing, telling the rest of the class to look it up because the definition of fart was: a small explosion between the legs...


      Hahaha!


      So from that day forward, all the kids in the class when they wanted to say that forbidden word, just used its definition instead. Example: Ewwww! Brett just had a small explosion between his legs!


      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9276505].message }}

Trending Topics