A Lot versus alot

[yrieithydd]

I just did this grammar quiz and I got 'Grammar God status (despite the fact that a number of the questions mark English/American disputes), but I was wound up by question 17 because of the error embedded in it. It's fine on what it's testing (not writing alot) but there's a mistake in it. A lot is singular therefore it is 'there is a lot of things which could be better' although it sounds utterly bizarre! Thus one should avoid the problem and say 'there are lots of things...'!

Actually, from a descriptive rather than a prescriptive perspective one could argue that, as people say 'there are alot of things' naturally and that insisting on 'there is a lot' sounds really really odd, 'a lot' (that is a group of things, like a lot in an auction) has in fact become one word with a plural sense and should be written as 'alot' and used with a plural verb. I think it's an example of grammaticalisation except for the fact I cannot work out which part of speech it has become.

(Just proving that my username is true!)

Comments

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

Indeed, thus the rule needs to be that one uses 'a lot' with items which cannot be counted and 'lots' with discrete items; thus, if one may say 'less' (and be correct!) one may use 'a lot' but if one should say 'fewer' one should use 'lots'.

What could be simpler?

[robert-jones.livejournal.com]

Nothing could be simpler, provided that you don't object to the complete lack of rationality. I mean, things can be "fewer" if they can be "few" and they can be "less" if they can be "little", but there is no sense in which there are several lots when describing people and only one lot when describing butter.

I think the problem is, if you want descriptive grammar, then you must admit that there is no distinction in usage between "a lot of" and "lots of", whereas if you want rectitude, then you must admit that both uses are nonsense.