 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » A lot v alot... |
|
Page 1 of 4 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| CatalinaIslandView... |
 Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Can a linguist answer this question for me? Since English has changed
so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language? For example,
"a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
Thanks for any help. I'm sorry this ng seems to have changed for the
worse. I've been reading it almost since the beginning.
TIA |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Harlan Messinger... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
CatalinaIslandView wrote:
[quote:9b1fc04d7a]Can a linguist answer this question for me? Since English has changed
so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language?
[/quote:9b1fc04d7a]
No one. Various publishers produce style guides that are authoritative
for works published under their aegis and that other organizations and
individuals find useful to adopt because they provide a measure of
reason and consistency, but there is no overarching final authority.
[quote:9b1fc04d7a]For example,
"a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
[/quote:9b1fc04d7a]
There's no one answer to this. Generally they become "accepted" when
they come to be used often enough by people who write carefully. It's a
circular criterion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| benlizro at (no spam) ihug.co.nz... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 2:15 am, CatalinaIslandView <isla... at (no spam) volcanomail.com>
wrote:
[quote:e68a21a8e9]Can a linguist answer this question for me? Since English has changed
so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language? For example,
"a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
Thanks for any help. I'm sorry this ng seems to have changed for the
worse. I've been reading it almost since the beginning.
TIA
[/quote:e68a21a8e9]
This is really not on the topic of correctness or linguistic
authority, but the subject line made me think of something else I've
been meaning to ask about. In my own English I have two pronunciations
of the negative-emphatic item "at all" (as in "not at all"), both of
which seem equally natural to me. One has the /t/ flapped, as it would
be in "at others", and the other has the /t/ aspirated as it would be
in "a tall" or "attack". So the first would represent the more
conservative two-word treatment, and the second treats it as a single
word. Are both these common?
Ross Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| DKleinecke... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 2:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 2:21 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote:a1a462b582]On Oct 13, 2:15 am, CatalinaIslandView <isla... at (no spam) volcanomail.com
wrote:
Can a linguist answer this question for me? Since English has changed
so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language? For example,
"a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
Thanks for any help. I'm sorry this ng seems to have changed for the
worse. I've been reading it almost since the beginning.
TIA
This is really not on the topic of correctness or linguistic
authority, but the subject line made me think of something else I've
been meaning to ask about. In my own English I have two pronunciations
of the negative-emphatic item "at all" (as in "not at all"), both of
which seem equally natural to me. One has the /t/ flapped, as it would
be in "at others", and the other has the /t/ aspirated as it would be
in "a tall" or "attack". So the first would represent the more
conservative two-word treatment, and the second treats it as a single
word. Are both these common?
Ross Clark
[/quote:a1a462b582]
Are you sure?
I pronounce "a tall" or "attack" with the accent on the second
syllable and the 't' is aspirated as usual. I pronounce "at all" with
the accent on the "at" and the 't' is flapped. Perhaps you use the
two different accent patterns in free variation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| benlizro at (no spam) ihug.co.nz... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:a62460c7ff]On Oct 12, 2:21 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:15 am, CatalinaIslandView <isla... at (no spam) volcanomail.com
wrote:
Can a linguist answer this question for me? Since English has changed
so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language? For example,
"a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
Thanks for any help. I'm sorry this ng seems to have changed for the
worse. I've been reading it almost since the beginning.
TIA
This is really not on the topic of correctness or linguistic
authority, but the subject line made me think of something else I've
been meaning to ask about. In my own English I have two pronunciations
of the negative-emphatic item "at all" (as in "not at all"), both of
which seem equally natural to me. One has the /t/ flapped, as it would
be in "at others", and the other has the /t/ aspirated as it would be
in "a tall" or "attack". So the first would represent the more
conservative two-word treatment, and the second treats it as a single
word. Are both these common?
Ross Clark
Are you sure?
I pronounce "a tall" or "attack" with the accent on the second
syllable and the 't' is aspirated as usual. I pronounce "at all" with
the accent on the "at" and the 't' is flapped. Perhaps you use the
two different accent patterns in free variation.
[/quote:a62460c7ff]
Nope, the accent is on the second syllable in both variants.
Ross Clark |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 6:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 9:22 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote:ec73df4219]On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:21 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:15 am, CatalinaIslandView <isla... at (no spam) volcanomail.com
wrote:
Can a linguist answer this question for me? Since English has changed
so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language? For example,
"a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
Thanks for any help. I'm sorry this ng seems to have changed for the
worse. I've been reading it almost since the beginning.
TIA
This is really not on the topic of correctness or linguistic
authority, but the subject line made me think of something else I've
been meaning to ask about. In my own English I have two pronunciations
of the negative-emphatic item "at all" (as in "not at all"), both of
which seem equally natural to me. One has the /t/ flapped, as it would
be in "at others", and the other has the /t/ aspirated as it would be
in "a tall" or "attack". So the first would represent the more
conservative two-word treatment, and the second treats it as a single
word. Are both these common?
Ross Clark
Are you sure?
I pronounce "a tall" or "attack" with the accent on the second
syllable and the 't' is aspirated as usual. I pronounce "at all" with
the accent on the "at" and the 't' is flapped. Perhaps you use the
two different accent patterns in free variation.
Nope, the accent is on the second syllable in both variants.
[/quote:ec73df4219]
Flapped seems US, aspirated UK. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Franz Gnaedinger... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 12, 3:15 pm, CatalinaIslandView <isla... at (no spam) volcanomail.com>
wrote:
[quote:49f8f7f4a1]Can a linguist answer this question for me? Since English has changed
so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language? For example,
"a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
Thanks for any help. I'm sorry this ng seems to have changed for the
worse. I've been reading it almost since the beginning.
TIA
[/quote:49f8f7f4a1]
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'. Does any of those
publishers go so far as to write and print 'alot books'?
Language development and evolution goes along
with technology. The more new technology, the more
language change. Information technology already
produced 20,000 new English words, and this
goes along with often drastic simplification of words
and of grammar as well. It is even a game people
play: who can come up with the most curageous
and funny but sensible abbreviation? They try
nearly everything, and a few abbreaviations catch
on, while most of them are ignored. The same as
with inventions: only a few really ingenious ones
make sense, the others are soon forgotten.
Language development and evolution demands
genius, and I consider 'alot of books' or correctly
'alot books' not really ingenious, but who knows? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hans Aberg... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
[quote:2deb7e8d85]If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
[/quote:2deb7e8d85]
Or perhaps "alotof", like "albeit". English already has such constructs.
Hans |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Hans Aberg wrote:
[quote:6a566ce405]Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
[/quote:6a566ce405]
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
pjk
[quote:6a566ce405]Or perhaps "alotof", like "albeit". English already has such constructs.
Hans[/quote:6a566ce405] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:03:01 +1300: "PaulJK"
<paul.kriha at (no spam) paradise.net.nz>: in sci.lang:
[quote:c9e0173e54]Hans Aberg wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
[/quote:c9e0173e54]
I like this comment alot.
Whole lotta luv. AC/DC. No, whole lotta woman.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PaulJK... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ruud Harmsen wrote:
[quote:96a2449b43]Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:03:01 +1300: "PaulJK"
paul.kriha at (no spam) paradise.net.nz>: in sci.lang:
Hans Aberg wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
I like this comment alot.
Whole lotta luv. AC/DC. No, whole lotta woman.
[/quote:96a2449b43]
Yeah, you say whole lotta luv, that's a lotta luv, man.
Yeah, I say that alot.
pjk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 1:56 am, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote:b516396c6c]On Oct 13, 5:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Oct 12, 9:22 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:34 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 12, 2:21 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 13, 2:15 am, CatalinaIslandView <isla... at (no spam) volcanomail.com
wrote:
Can a linguist answer this question for me? Since English has changed
so much and continues to constantly do so and we don't have an
Academy, what/who is the final authority on our language? For example,
"a lot" was the correct spelling but lately I see it spelled "alot" in
various publications. When is a spelling or usage wrong (contact and
intrigue were not originally verbs and now are) or when is the word in
transition and will eventually be accepted as correct? I'm sorry this
is not very articulate but it's early in the morning...
Thanks for any help. I'm sorry this ng seems to have changed for the
worse. I've been reading it almost since the beginning.
TIA
This is really not on the topic of correctness or linguistic
authority, but the subject line made me think of something else I've
been meaning to ask about. In my own English I have two pronunciations
of the negative-emphatic item "at all" (as in "not at all"), both of
which seem equally natural to me. One has the /t/ flapped, as it would
be in "at others", and the other has the /t/ aspirated as it would be
in "a tall" or "attack". So the first would represent the more
conservative two-word treatment, and the second treats it as a single
word. Are both these common?
Ross Clark
Are you sure?
I pronounce "a tall" or "attack" with the accent on the second
syllable and the 't' is aspirated as usual. I pronounce "at all" with
the accent on the "at" and the 't' is flapped. Perhaps you use the
two different accent patterns in free variation.
Nope, the accent is on the second syllable in both variants.
Flapped seems US, aspirated UK.
Ah, my ambivalent Canadian heritage again...
But what interests me is: I assume that flap means (some kind of)
boundary following the /t/, and aspiration means none. And it seems to
me that synchronically lexically semantically the expression is a
single morpheme. So is the flapped version genuinely conservative
(phonology lagging behind semantics) or is it perhaps influenced by
the spelling? Which is why I connected it with "alot" vs "a lot".
There's one important difference, though, and that's the possibility
of interpolating (at least) "whole" between the words, whereas as far
as I know nothing can intervene in "at all". (Both "at- fucking/bloody-
all" and "a-fucking/bloody-tall" sound ridiculous.)
[/quote:b516396c6c]
I think the aspirated version is spelled <a-tall>.
Do you have the McCawley Fs. (*Studies Out in Left Field*)? I think
that's where Quang Phuc Dong (aka JMcC)'s piece on the fucking infix
was published. It seems morpheme boundaries are irrelevant, because we
have both "abso-bloomin'-lutely" and "in-fuckin'-credible"; is there
maybe a constraint that you need more than two syllables? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 13, 5:42 am, Franz Gnaedinger <f... at (no spam) bluemail.ch> wrote:
[quote:30c8a6fb11]On Oct 13, 10:27 am, Hans Aberg <haberg_20080... at (no spam) math.su.se> wrote:
Or perhaps "alotof", like "albeit". English already has such constructs..
Do you also say afew?
I am no native speaker of English, but I discern
a slight semantic difference between 'few' and
'a few':
[/quote:30c8a6fb11]
Unfortunately you left the "a" out of both your examples. (Which I
personally prefer to "both of your examples," but my publisher Jim
Eisenbraun, an Indiana native, insists that there are American
dialects where quantifiers like "both" and "all" cannot be treated
like adjectives but must be treated like nouns with the "of.")
[quote:30c8a6fb11] few papers have been written on this question
= I am an expert in the field, I know the authors
who work on this question and the papers they
wrote, and they are small in number
[/quote:30c8a6fb11]
only the last five words are needed to define "few papers"
[quote:30c8a6fb11] few papers have been written on this topic
= the topic is new, only a few papers have
been written on it so far, some of them I know,
of some others I have heard, and there might
be some more, but not many, all in all only
a few papers
[/quote:30c8a6fb11]
One really can't use the expression being defined within the
definition!
only the last seven words are needed to define "a few papers"
This is one of the easiest ways to identify a non-native speaker. The
distinction is hard to explicate. Perhaps it helps to recall *"only
few"; only "only a few" is possible.
"Few papers have been written" calls attention to the gap in the
literature.
"A few papers have been written" suggests that an effort has been made
to fill the gap in the literature.
(Which reminds me, an Oxford University Press advertisement printed in
the journal *Language* some years ago _actually said_ "This volume
fills a much-needed gap in the literature.")
[quote:30c8a6fb11]If this holds we would have to say few in the first
case and afew in the second case, while saying
'alot' but 'a few' makes no sense, because using
only one word for a lot and two words for a few
is contrary to what one may call a depicting truth
of language: a lot of words and letters or at least
two words (a lot) or three words (a lot of) for
many things, one word (few or afew) for a small
number of things.
[/quote:30c8a6fb11]
The way you spell it has nothing to do "how many words you are
saying." The two expressions are the same length and their spellings
are historical accident.
[quote:30c8a6fb11]It's getting awfully complicated!
[/quote:30c8a6fb11]
Which is yet another reason why "Magdalenian" is not a legitimate
proposal for a human language. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ruud Harmsen... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:42:41 -0700 (PDT): Franz Gnaedinger
<frgn at (no spam) bluemail.ch>: in sci.lang:
[quote:854a7a8339]I am no native speaker of English, but I discern
a slight semantic difference between 'few' and
'a few':
[/quote:854a7a8339]
Ja. Few = wenige, a few = einige.
(English-Deutsch).
Dutch: weinig/enkele.
Not the same thing. "Few" is a low number, "a few" is an unspecified
(usually not very great) number of objects.
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.eu |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Hans Aberg... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:46 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
PaulJK wrote:
[quote:988205e808]Hans Aberg wrote:
Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
If 'a lot' is written 'alot' it becomes a word like 'all'
or 'many' or 'five' and had to be treated alike:
'all books', 'many books', 'five books', 'alot books'
instead of 'a lot of books'.
Here and there, you may hear something like "a lotta books",
but "alot books"? Who have you heard say that?
pjk
[/quote:988205e808]
You misquoted, making look as though I said it, and then the error is
propagated down the thread.
Hans |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:46 am
|
|