Got it mixed up again. English is so tricky. I’ve always gotten that one mixed up. At least I knew alot isn’t a word. 
No worries! English is a beast, for sure.
Minor bump (is a few months a “bump?”) to keep me from starting a Pit Thread on “alot.” Up till now I thought it was a common typo and ignored it, but just today I saw “alot” used in three posts here, and in a novel–by a writer!–I was editing.
Stunned. These people are obviously not illiterate or stupid, but what on *earth *could make people thing “a lot” is one word?
P.S. This question was never answered. “Ahold” is not a word–it should be “I am trying to get hold of him.”
Whenever I see “alot”, I mentally correct it to be “an alot” because the lack of an article is more jarring to me than the error itself. “I ate an alot of ice cream”.
Strange, for not being a word, it’s sure faking it well.
(It’s certainly not acceptable in formal written english, but let me assure you, it is indisputably a word.)
I guess in the sense that “their” is a word when one should use “they’re,” or “lot’s” is a word when one means “lots.” But it’s not a word people use when they want anyone to take them seriously. Unless it is indeed a typo, which I can always overlook.
Are “teh”, “becuase” and “raceve” words as well?
First of all, in spoken english, nobody will ever know if you’re saying they’re, their, or there or lots vs lot’s. Ahold is pretty common in spoken english. I know I say ahold and I speak english and further more, when I say it, I am not greeted by confused looks and requests for clarification but rather further conversation. So, yes it’s an english word.
If there is a segment of the english population that uses teh, becuase, and raceve and they are understood by the listener/reader then yes they are words, your indignation notwithstanding.
Just because it’s not a word, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be.
Urbandictionary.com, which experts say is the most respected English dictionary in the world, only recognizes the first one, so yes, “teh” is a word.
Stunned myself. What on earth could make people think it’s not a word?
There is no actual “lot” which I would be referring to in almost any instance in which I use the word/phrase in question.
There are, so far as I can recall, no other adverbial phrases which begin with the indefinite article.**
The thing is manifestly, obviously, axiomatically a single word.* It takes an act of will to perversely insist on spelling it as though it were two words.
The perversion also happens to be the convention in this case, but that makes it no less of a perversion.
*Of course, it’s the only English word I can think of with it’s own dedicated infix (“whole”) but that’s beside the point!
**Indeed, we could have said “a while” in some cases, but we don’t–we write “awhile.” That’s the convention. Everyone is being perfectly non-perverted when it comes to “awhile” so why do we insist on abomination when it comes to “a lot”?
Thank you, alot is obviously a natural word just held back by people pushing their own belief system of how teh (sic) world should be run.
Can you give an example of a sentence using either “alot” or “a lot” in which the expression refers to no actual lot? I believe that whenever I use it it does refer to something.
Or do you write “abunch,” “agroup,” “acouple,” etc. too?
“A bit”.
I’m feeling a lot better. <-> I’m feeling a bit better.
She changed a lot. <-> She changed a bit.
Feel free to substitute “a little”, “a tad”, etc., in those examples.
A ton, a pantsload, a shitload, a fucking cubic hectare.
I was born in 1962, and my public school teachers universally had a pet peeve about the use of “alot” instead of “a lot”. “Awhole” bunch of uneducated people use “alot”, so as a descriptivist, I know what they mean by it, but the meaning I get out of it is that the user had an inadequate education in the usage of “a lot”.
Two people in this thread report that they were taught this in Canada in the early 1980s or mid-1980s. This brings back a memory for me. In the summer of 1981 I was visiting my uncle and aunt in Canada (both originally Irish, now Canadian citizens), and I remember my aunt complaining that Canadian schools were at that time teaching (or proposing to teach) “should of” instead of “should have”.
Both the timing and the principle (taking a descriptivist approach to the teaching of English in school) fit with the experience described in this thread of being taught “alot”, and make it believable for me.
Is there any way of finding out if there was such an educational trend that was implemented for a few years in the 80s in anglophone schools in Canada (or at least Ontario)?
It’s quite a poser for me, as a writer, interviewer and copy editor. As an editor, I have to keep writers sounding like themselves, while at the same time not allowing them to just play ducks and drakes with proper English to the point where they come off as unlettered.
As an interviewer and writer, I never *ever *correct people’s grammar or speech patterns (though of course “a lot” and “alot” *sound *alike). One actor I interviewed called me and said “that is the first interview that actually sounded like me!” Which was awfully nice of him.
So I am not in favor of ironing out and sanitizing the English language. I love slang and can sling it with the best. But “alot” is like nails on a blackboard to me and just strikes me as a mistake–people who do not realize they have never learned the proper spelling of those two words.
That’s abit of an exaggeration isntit? Oh man, that hurt alittle just to write.