Randall Young wrote:
>
> 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").
>
> 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 word
> "transistor" was nowhere to be found, and the word "computer" meant a
> person who did mathematics. We make up new words and change the meaning
> of old ones all the time. The dictionaries cannot hope to keep up. In
> fact, the entire concept of dictionary is a much newer invention than
> English.
Well, I had a long, somewhat pedantic reply to this, which was wiped out
when the browser crashed... probably just as well. <smile>
But, the English teacher in me [was that in a recent former life]
suggests that simply because a word is in common usage and the meaning
can derived, doesn't make it correct usage. And, if the context doesn't
help supply meaning for a non-word or a word with incorrect usage, the
result is very fuzzy communication. One can tolerate that in email, I
suppose, but one would hardly be happy with such in an IRS notice, or
assembly instructions, or an important work document.
As for "alot," it's incorrect usage. The reason for this usage is more
complex than it seems. The non-word (lexicographers do indeed have a
code for non-words in common usage), as written, is a phonetic mirror of
how it is spoken in the U.S. Here, we slur the words together when
speaking and blunt the long "a" into a short "a," so that, when spoken,
the two words sound like "uh-lot." So, people write it the way they hear
it. Nevertheless, they are two separate words, and lexicographers will
continue to treat them as such. Consider general lexicographical rules.
The words "light" and "alight" and "a light" have distinctively
different meanings. "A lot" and "alot" do not, fundamentally, so the
predating usage will appear in dictionaries.
As for dictionaries, I think their history is a good deal longer than
you might suspect. Scholars believe there is some anecdotal evidence
that one of the prized collections of the Great Library at Alexandria
(which was burned in the 5th century A.D.) was its dictionaries. Latin
spelling books were common in all medieval monasteries where scribes
worked. The French, I think, began work on a French dictionary in the
14th century. Even the English had dictionaries in English which predate
its modern usage. The first one of record was one of Middle English,
written in 1440, long before English became what it is today, and when
it was still a meld of Gaelic and of the Saxony dialect, Anglisc (from
which English derives). And, while Samuel Johnson was credited with
publishing the first comprehensive English dictionary in 1755, there
were many so-called "hard word" dictionaries preceding his; the largest
of which was published in 1676.
Lexicography may seem slow and horribly pedantic, but it takes time to
see if a word will take root in the language, or if its meaning changes
over time, so it is a much slower process than fast food. <smile> If one
has any doubt of that, simply have a look at the most recent version of
the complete Oxford English dictionary. (!)
Lexicographers also understand that they are both recorders of language
and preservers of language. The rules of language can be broken to good
effect and purpose (Joyce immediately comes to mind in this regard), but
for common discourse and communication, a unified set of standard usages
has to be available in order to make communication possible. Too many
people today, in ordinary writing, use, for example, "they," "their,"
"they're," and "there" almost interchangeably, expecting context of the
surrounding sentences to supply meaning. Often, it does not, and one is
left scratching one's head at the intent of the missive. That's why we
have dictionaries, and English teachers, and editors. <smile>
Cheers.
--
Michael D. Porter
Roswell, NM
[mailto: mporter@zianet.com]
`70 GT6+ (being refurbished, slowly)
`71 GT6 Mk. III (organ donor)
`72 GT6 Mk. III (daily driver)
`64 TR4 (awaiting intensive care)
`80 TR7 (3.8 liter Buick-powered)
|