Re: USAGE : ALOT: the final word
| From: | Tristan McLeay <zsau@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, December 28, 2003, 5:28 |
|---|
I'm not sure how you can describe this as 'the final word' because the
words of thousands of English writers is *still* that 'alot' is a word.
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003, Gary Shannon wrote:
> Fact: Yes, there are bazzilions of entries for "alot"
> when you do a Google search. BUT many of them are
> there to point out that "alot" is not a word.
The fact that so many people feel it necessary to point out that 'alot'
isn't a word is telling, isn't it? Also, I find it highly unlikely that
200 (say) of those are people thinking it's a word and 3 600 000 are
people telling them not to use it. I would imagine it's closer to the
opposite.
That appears to be the personal webpage of Paul Brians rather than the
opinion of Washington State Uni; even if it was, however, unless WSU has
become our Acadamie Francais without anyone telling me, I don't think it
matters any more than mine (except that they might publish more things
than me so their usage will come out more frequently than mine).
> Perhaps this common spelling error began because there
> does exist in English a word spelled "allot" which is
> a verb meaning to apportion or grant.
That seems incredibly unlikely to me, because 'allot' would get through
any spell checker whereas 'alot' wouldn't. If 'allot' meaning 'alot' were
more common, I might understand that, but I doubt it is.
(BTW, you might find it useful to mark quotes in some way, indenting or
quotes or : or something.)
> One site reports that the "word" appears OFTEN on the
> Internet in newsgroup and forum postings by
> non-writers, but NEVER in print. It is never found in
> newspapers, magazines or books, with some few
> exceptions in the sports pages of small-town
> newspapers.
That's only because Internet newsgroup and forum postings aren't edited in
general, whereas printed stuff is generally edited by someone who has a
policy.
> see also these sites which preach against the use of
> the non-word "alot": Most of these are sites by and/or
> for writers. The bottom line is, go ahead an use
> "alot", but if you ever want to become a professional
> writer and see your work in print, get used to the
> fact that your editor will blue pencil "alot" and
> correct it every place it appears.
And if I want to be come a published writer, I'll no doubt see my
carefully and specifically spelt 'color' and 'favor' and 'labor' replaced
by 'colour' and 'favour' and 'labour' (or my less carefully and
specifically spelt 'specialise' and 'realise' replaced by 'specialize' and
'realize' if published in the US). This is just one of those things that
happen. On the other hand, I imagine the next (and perhaps even current)
edition of the Macquarie Dictionary (Australia's answer to Websters or
Oxford) will probably contain the word 'alot'.
> If you are not already a best-selling author, be aware
> that first readers will summarily reject a manuscript
> from an unknown writer that uses "alot" because it
> shows a casual disreagard for the language, and to be
> a good writer you must love the language and respect
> it. That kind of disrespect for the langauge will not
> impress an editor who has to wade through too much
> dreck as it is.
Disrespect for langauge [sic] is telling it how to be, I would've
thought. (Personally, I imagine an editor reading something wouldn't be
caring too much about 'alot' in a printed manuscript which is just going
to have to be re-typed, and anyway, if he has to wade through too much
dreck, he'll probably be paying more attention to other things, like
whether or not this is dreck. Of course, not having been an editor, nor
having known any, my guesses are just that.)
> entry from the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage:
> Alot may eventually become an accepted spelling,
> following the precedents of amiss, apiece, and awhile,
> which were all originally written as two words. But
> for now alot should be avoided. Dictionaries don't
> list it, and many people consider its use a mark of
> illiteracy.
Once again, the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage is no more
authoratative than my own opinion. I've read a guide to Australian English
usage (I think it had 'Macquarie' in its title FWIW) which promoted
'color' and 'practice' and 'licence' (yes, not 'license') as verbs, but
these are far from the dominant Australian spellings.
Perhaps, though, you would have all the other barbarisms abandoned, like
the progressive passive ('the house is being built' instead of 'the house
is building') or the pronunciation of -ing as /IN/.
I'm sure there are dozens of sites advocating 'alot'; or if there aren't,
one would suggest that it's because it doesn't *need* advocacy, but some
innate superiority (based on the internal representation, not objective
facts) or fashion promotes it.
--
Tristan