english

[mycrabface]

Is alot spelled as 'a lot' or 'alot'?

[ada]

a lot

[ahinton]

a lot

This is correct - although Benjamin Britten always used to write "abit" rather than the correct "a bit" - just a personal h-abit, one may suppose.

While we're on this kind of thing, I note an ever increasingly prevalent use of "anymore" rather than "any more" and I wonder whether its very prevalence is itself conferring an acceptably correct status on the conjoined words in contemporary usage...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Citizens for the right to keep and arm bears

Two things occur to me here. One is that the bear population in Australia is surely at best rather small. The other is that I had thought that the phrase was actually "Citizens for the right to keep bare arms" - provided, of course, that plenty of factor 40 be used when the Australian sunshine through the depleted ozone layer over there necessitates this.

Another twisted interpretation of the original, by the way, is "citizens for the right keep and bear arms; those for the left tend more towards pacifism"; this one has, however, emerged from the same country as that original, as well you may imagine...

Best,

Alistair

[jre58591]

here is a semi-related question: why do some countries spell "program" as "programme", "color" as "colour", "favorite" as "favourite", etc? why not just eliminate the unnecessary letters? also, at the moment, my firefox spellchecker is telling me that these 2nd spellings are wrong, so they must be.

[arensky]

here is a semi-related question: why do some countries spell "program" as "programme", "color" as "colour", "favorite" as "favourite", etc? why not just eliminate the unnecessary letters? also, at the moment, my firefox spellchecker is telling me that these 2nd spellings are wrong, so they must be.

In the UK and Commonwealth countries those are considered to be the correct spellings. I spell humor as humour simply because I prefer it.

[ahinton]

here is a semi-related question: why do some countries spell "program" as "programme", "color" as "colour", "favorite" as "favourite", etc? why not just eliminate the unnecessary letters? also, at the moment, my firefox spellchecker is telling me that these 2nd spellings are wrong, so they must be.

I'm not familiar with Firefox, but if its spellchecker is anything like Microshaft's it should presumably have separate settings for US English and UK English, within each of which the different spellings will be accepted or challenged according to what is deemed correct in each of those countries.

Best,

Alistair

[kony]

i think slowly many words will just die and get changed and new, often originally wrong words will be created.

e.g. the distinction between "few", "fewer", "fewest" versus "little", "less", "least". people are starting to just get rid of "fewer" entirely.

e.g. the word "verse". it's commonly thought to be a verb, as in "i'll verse you in tennis", though this is wrong

also on things like pronunciation, words like "plethora" are pronounced wrongly almost all the time. the emphasis is on the "ple-" bit, not the "thora" bit.

[mycrabface]

I'm not familiar with Firefox, but if its spellchecker is anything like Microshaft's it should presumably have separate settings for US English and UK English, within each of which the different spellings will be accepted or challenged according to what is deemed correct in each of those countries.

Best,

Alistair

Yeah American and British spellings are different. Another one is gray and grey. Alistair, how many times a day do you check the forums?? I'm seeing you reply at a rapid rate today..

[prometheus]

I mix English and American spelling up as well.

As a non-native it is very strange choice to pick one of them.

[Waldszenen]

To be on the political side of things, British English is more "correct" overall because it's used pretty much all over the world except for the Americas.

No idea why the Americans insisted on changing the originals...

[prometheus]

Yes, that's true. But if you speak to people learning language in countries without an English language tradition like for example India then often they will speak more like Americans than like British. I guess this is because of american telivision being more popular.

Here many people were learned to speak the british way in school. But it would be interesting to see how many 'cent' and 'dence' we get compared with 'can't' and 'dance'.

[wishful thinker]

No idea why the Americans insisted on changing the originals...

It's not that they changed the origianals, but that there has been some seperate development over the centuries.  Dictionaries didn't become common until the 18th/19th century (Dr Johnson publishing his famous one in 1755), many words had multiple spellings, or people just didn't think it important to be consistent in their spellings.

One interesting derivation to this is pronounciation.  Take for instance "clerk".  The British pronounce this "cl-ar-k" and mock the Merkins for saying "cl-er-k".  However "er" is in fact the older pronounciation, taken to the US with the founding fathers and it didn't change there, but changed in the UK. 

[ahinton]

To be on the political side of things, British English is more "correct" overall because it's used pretty much all over the world except for the Americas.

No idea why the Americans insisted on changing the originals...

I think it fair to say that this is true at least in terms of precedent, "British English" having obviously been around for rather longer. I have no more idea than you who may have changed those particular spellings in America, or when.

That said, there can be no doubt that spelling and pronunciation in what is generally understood and recognised (even today) as British English is a minefield for non-British non-English-speaking people to learn as a foreign language; I have every sympathy for people who learn English as a wholly foreign language. Given also that the French would assert that it is more possible to equivocate in British English than in any other language, it is perhaps somewhat ironical it was left to de la Rochefoucauld to be the one to write that "language was given to Man to conceal his thoughts"...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

It's not that they changed the origianals, but that there has been some seperate development over the centuries.  Dictionaries didn't become common until the 18th/19th century (Dr Johnson publishing his famous one in 1755), many words had multiple spellings, or people just didn't think it important to be consistent in their spellings.

One interesting derivation to this is pronounciation.  Take for instance "clerk".  The British pronounce this "cl-ar-k" and mock the Merkins for saying "cl-er-k".  However "er" is in fact the older pronounciation, taken to the US with the founding fathers and it didn't change there, but changed in the UK. 

Mm - interesting! Nothing's ever quite as simple as it might seem, is it?!

Best,

Alistair

[wishful thinker]

True my friend.  All excited about tomorrow? 

[ahinton]

True my friend.  All excited about tomorrow? 

Well, there'd almost certainly be something wrong with me if I were not, that's for sure; will you be able to get to it, do you think? I hope so. I have every reason to anticipate that Jonathan Powell's performance will be splendid.

Best,

Alistair

[Waldszenen]

The only spelling variant that irks me is when sulphur is spelt as sulfur... I know that the latter is the correct IUPAC spelling blablabla...

Never mind me, just a random chemistry student blabbing on... >_>

[leucippus]

Is alot spelled as 'a lot' or 'alot'?

That depends on how you're using it.

If you are using it to mean a large quantity of something then it's two words 'a lot'

Example: "You have a lot of time"

However, if you are using it to mean that you are giving something to someone then it's "allot" with two L's.

Example: "I will allot you only ten minutes"

[jas]

That depends on how you're using it.

If you are using it to mean a large quantity of something then it's two words 'a lot'

Example: "You have a lot of time"

However, if you are using it to mean that you are giving something to someone then it's "allot" with two L's.

Example: "I will allot you only ten minutes"

Exactly. There is no "alot". It's a pet hate of mine, actually, along with "nevermind". Two words!!

[ihatepop]

Exactly. There is no "alot". It's a pet hate of mine, actually, along with "nevermind". Two words!!

Me too. 

ihatepop

[pianowelsh]

No jre58591 they are not 'wrong' they are the ENGLISH spellings of the words in question and are therefore technically more correct! However noone in the UK actually cares anymore about such details as our bradsheets and tabloids are permeated and thoroughly infused with Americanisms of all kinds, we now stray bewteen australian, american and traditional English words not to mention our own unique regional dialects in everyday speach... and the country is worse for it!! American to rhyme with scumb!!! (only joking I love Americans )

[mycrabface]

That depends on how you're using it.

If you are using it to mean a large quantity of something then it's two words 'a lot'

Example: "You have a lot of time"

However, if you are using it to mean that you are giving something to someone then it's "allot" with two L's.

Example: "I will allot you only ten minutes"

I mean 'a lot'.. I don't have a spelling problem!

[Waldszenen]

Exactly. There is no "alot". It's a pet hate of mine, actually, along with "nevermind". Two words!!

And don't forget "Thankyou".

[pianolist]

Our attitude to language gives a real insight into our souls, allowing for the fact that in my atheistic opinion we don't have such things. We get used to a particular way of expressing ourselves, and it marks our territory, our generation and our friendships. I guess that is why we are unsettled by change, or by the incorrect usage of words.

We allow those from abroad to be different, either because they were "us" once, like the Yanks or Ozzies, or because they are decent Johnny Foreigners who are trying hard to improve themselves, but we don't like our native speakers to dilute our own customs!

The TV soap opera, "Neighbours", has been extremely popular in Britain for years, and it has altered the accents of a whole generation. I was brought up to pronounce "No" with a round "Oh" sound, but Londoners under 35 have generally reverted to pronoucing it almost as "Nay", as do the Australians. I don't mind that in itself, but I do find, at the age of 58, that some young people are quite difficult to understand. I don't think my hearing has deteriorated vastly, so it must simply be the differences in accent.

Grammar is another area where customs change almost yearly. The indeterminate use of singular nouns and plural verbs begins to make language less precise. "The Government are committed to speaking the truth," is probably untrue, certainly ungrammatical, but is unlikely to be misunderstood. "Many UK citizens have been avoiding paying for their television licences. The Government is taking their responsibilities very seriously," is less clear.

The paradox of musicians who consider accuracy in music to be of paramount importance, but who ride roughshod over the rules of a spoken language, is a strange one. If anything, musical expression is less precise than that of the written word, so you would think that it would be less important to adhere to an exact text.

There's now't so strange as folk, as those weird Northeners say.

[pianistimo]

perhaps music is also a poor man's/woman's language.  if they can't convey what they mean in written language - then they try also with music.  to me, it does express the soul more succinctly because you can hear the nuances better.

perhaps, now that the world is internationalized by the internet - music is one of the best understood languages.  immediately people understand what you are trying to convey - even if it is 'poor grammar.' 

i attribute having to read 'pilgrim's progress' as the time of a slight turn off from my interest in english.  only to have it reinflamed when i took a creative writing class and could start describing things that i experienced or real life types of things.  nowdays - the choices for novels in 7th, 8th, and 9th grade would likely still turn me off.  usually quite depressing topics - but lots of vocabulary words.  why don't they use adventures and historical stuff more?  or, just plain old classics combined with books that the youngsters choose themselves?

[pianolist]

My goodness, you're up early! Mind you, Mrs Pianolist went to Vienna this morning, and by mistake we put the alarm clock on an hour early, so I've been up since 5.45 am too. Vocabulary is greatly helped by coffee, I find.

[pianistimo]

5:45 ?  i was up at 4:30 am.  some kind of quirk i've been having lately.  mrs. pianolist is off to vienna?  that sounds posh.  now why aren't you tagging along?  i take it she's meeting up with galfriends and doing 'girly' stuff - or she's an art person and going to bid on some things you'd rather not hear the price of.  or, you send her out anonymously to collect piano rolls. 

what i don't understand is why soduko has become the rage - leaving crossword puzzles in the dust.  i think it is a plot to undermine the vocabularies of people.  i mean - what person goes around figuring numbers in a box in real life.  my next life challenge will be to subvert this plot and start stealing soduko stuff from waiting rooms and switching it with crossword puzzles again.

[pianolist]

I'm addicted to Sudoku. I need help. Is there a Sudokists Anonymous, or perhaps a Sudokists Pseudonymous? Mind you, I do the crosswords too.

[pianistimo]

nothing to fear, as your english is impeccable.  was listening to my daughter's radio station this morning and they had a game where the young people that call in have to speak for a certain short amount of time without using the words 'like,' 'a,' or 'um.'  the last caller i heard- started with 'um'  and had the buzzer cut her off immediately.  (they were each given a topic to speak about).