12

I never saw anyone work as hard as he did, many a time I saw him on the weekends working to his highest standards to give the best research he could give.

From the context, I understand many a time equals many times. My question is when we can use this structure. Can we, for example, say many a person in place of many people?

A link explaining this structure will be appreciated.

ColleenV
  • 11,971
  • 13
  • 47
  • 85
Juya
  • 2,576
  • 11
  • 37
  • 68
  • 3
    Many a time = on many different occasions/often. It is a somewhat "folksy" manner. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=(many+a+time)&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%28many%20a%20time%29%3B%2Cc0 and https://books.google.com/books?id=sIBBAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA33&dq=%22many+a+time%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=A4cDVbTcJo7msATqo4K4AQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=%22many%20a%20time%22&f=false – TimR Mar 14 '15 at 00:54
  • 1
    reminds me of a family anecdote - my aunt, when she was young [1950's] on arriving home late one night [probably 'late' == after 10pm in those days] was asked by her mother, "Young lady, have you seen that clock?" - to which she replied, "Yes, many a time." – DoneWithThis. Mar 14 '15 at 01:07
  • 2
    To my native ear, "many a time" doesn't seem like something that you would normally say (and doesn't sound like it's correct grammar, even though it might be correct). I've never heard anyone say it – Jojodmo Mar 14 '15 at 01:33
  • 2
    @Jojodmo - it's perfectly good English, just antiquated. It's actually quite common in Northern BrE - as are many other antiquated forms. – DoneWithThis. Mar 14 '15 at 11:58

2 Answers2

8

According to the 2002 CGEL, the usage of the expression "many a time" is fine and standard English.

But if you use a different count singular noun than "time" in that expression, such as in "many a person", then you might risk having that expression seen as being somewhat formal or archaic.

In the 2002 CGEL, page 394:

Many in combination with a

Many combines with a to form two kinds of complex determinative:

[66]

  • i. [Many a man] has been moved to tears by this sight.

  • ii. [A great many complaints] had been received.

Many a is syntactically inert: nothing can intervene between many and a, and many cannot even be replaced in this position by its antonym few. Like a, many a always functions as determiner. It is found in proverbs such as There's many a slip twixt cup and lip, and in the frequency adjunct many a time, but is elsewhere somewhat formal or archaic. The many component indicates a large number, but the a has an individuating and distributive effect requiring a count singular head.

Great in a great many can be replaced by good, but one or other of these adjectives is required; for the rest, these expressions are syntactically comparable to a few. They function as determiner or fused determiner-head (simple or partitive).

NOTE: The 2002 CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum (et al.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.

Community
  • 1
F.E.
  • 5,010
  • 1
  • 21
  • 40
  • 1
    +1 But, there is actually one word that can appear between many and a in that construction ... – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 14 '15 at 22:43
  • 1
    @Araucaria And that one word is? – F.E. Mar 14 '15 at 22:50
  • 1
    That word, arguably, is "many" ;) [which is part of the argument that many is an adjective ...] – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 14 '15 at 22:53
  • 1
    @Araucaria Wait! Do you mean something like: "There's many [many a] slip twixt cup and lip." :D -- (EDIT: And I'm not seeing any argument for considering either "many" as being an adjective.) – F.E. Mar 14 '15 at 22:55
  • 2
    Well, your prototypical determinative is not stackable. "Give me a a slice of bread. I want some some beer. I'll have that, that book. I found the the pen" – Araucaria - Not here any more. Mar 14 '15 at 22:59
  • 2
    @Araucaria Hmm, it seems you might have something there, where something like "many many a time" might be falling in between the cracks in CGEL's framework. It seems that adjectives do intensificatory repetition/tautology, and the syntactically inert determinative "many a" can only function as a determiner. So, that does seem to pose as a hiccup. :) – F.E. Mar 15 '15 at 07:11
  • 1
    Great! And what about its corresponding verb? Should I say Many a person are waiting for you or Many a person is waiting ...? considering the meaning the former and considering grammar rules the latter sounds better. – Juya Mar 15 '15 at 22:05
  • 2
    @Juya I've added the rest of the CGEL info, which includes: [66.i] "Many a man has been moved to tears by this sight", and it uses a singular verb ("has") which agrees with the singular noun ("man") in the subject. :) – F.E. Mar 15 '15 at 22:39
7

Yes, you can say many a person instead of many persons; you can use "many a" for a large number of (many) people or things.

The only difference is that "many" is more common in use, whereas the phrase "many a" is formal, old-fashioned, or literary. Many is used with a plural noun and verb, whereas "many a" is used with a singular noun and verb.

Many persons don't come to this restaurant.
Many a person doesn't come to this restaurant.

Andrew Tobilko
  • 12,147
  • 6
  • 30
  • 67
Khan
  • 27,174
  • 1
  • 28
  • 50