Re: USAGE : English past tense and participle in -et

Andreas Johansson wrote:
> Quoting "Mark J. Reed" <markjreed@...>:
>
>
>>On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 12:15:03AM +0100, Andreas Johansson wrote:
>>
>>>Quoting David Barrow <davidab@...>:
>>>
>>>
>>>>alot for a lot is a spelling matter
>>>
>>>Indeed, but a useful one; adopting the former for the quantifier allows us
>>
>>to
>>
>>>restrict the later for indef article plus the noun "lot".
>>
>>Argh.  The quantifier IS the indef article plus the noun "lot".
>>I don't understand why you feel the need to make a distinction where
>>none exists.
>
>
> Because that's the way I learnt English.
>
> But let's forget me. _If_ there's no difference, _why_ do we see the one-words
> spelling "alot" commonly used, but _not_ **"abunch" or similar, and this by
> native speakers?
I think (DQMOT) that the spelling "alot" first appeared as an alternate
spelling of "a lot" used adverbially, where it makes a certain amount of
sense, and spread to the quantifier usage due to analogy/laziness.

--
Nightstar IRC: More fun than a box of ferrets!
<http://www.nightstar.net/>

With your IRC client: <irc://irc.nightstar.net/>
With Java IRC client: <http://www.nightstar.net/chat.php>