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

Costentin Cornomorus wrote at 2003-12-26 18:09:12 (-0800)
 > --- Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:
 > >
 > > If we're going to admit "alot" why not also admit "afew",
 > > "alittle", "abunch" and "anumber".  If I can write "I have alot
 > > of ideas" I should be able to write "I have acouple dollars," and
 > > "I have abunch of grapes."
 >
 > Well, a- is an old intensive particle in English (as well as a
 > present participal marker). I doubt that people are aware of this,
 > but it seems that they're simply recomposing single words that look
 > to have been decomposed at some time apast.
 >
 > When you think about it, "a" in such phrases really can't be the
 > indefinite article, because the noun that follows is always
 > plural. (Can anyone think of any exceptions?)
 >

Sure it can. The word after the article is a singular noun, and the
plural (or mass, in some cases) noun following it is a genitive
dependent (marked with "of").  This is clearly the case with "bunch",
at least - it's exactly the same construction as "a barrel of
monkeys".  The other examples have become grammaticalized to a greater
or lesser extent.  "Few" and "little" don't really function as nouns
any more; "number", "couple" and "lot" do, but not with quite the same
sense as in this construction.  I'd imagine they were originally
well-behaved nouns of the same type as "bunch", unless anyone knows
otherwise?

It's interesting that "a lot" can take either plural or mass nouns,
while for small quantities these are split between "a few" and "a
little".