Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*alot\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*alot\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. alot (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:45:32 -0400charset="iso-8859-1"; There is no such word as "alot". There is a word "lot". MG people know this. 7 : a considerable quantity or extent <a lot of money> <lots of friends> The Grammar Police; /html/triumphs/2000-09/msg01116.html (6,408 bytes)
2. Re: alot (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:34:31 -0700; I disagree on two fronts : First, clearly the word exists. You've obviously seen it used (else why the lecture) and know what it means (else why assume it's a misspelling of "a lot" instead of "allot; /html/triumphs/2000-09/msg01164.html (7,440 bytes)
3. Re: alot (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 20:56:35 -0400; Message text written by Randall Young language, then I would argue that English is a living language, defined by common usage, not by some dictionary. 50 years ago, the word "transistor" was nowhere; /html/triumphs/2000-09/msg01165.html (7,051 bytes)
4. Re: alot (score: 1): Author: Unknown; Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 00:03:53 EDT; << If your argument is that it is not properly part of the English language, then I would argue that English is a living language, defined by common usage, not by some dictionary. 50 years ago, the w; /html/triumphs/2000-09/msg01174.html (6,987 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]