5

I constantly have trouble with spelling the word-phrases ‘at least’ and ‘a lot’ .. they both should be a single word in my mind, which isn’t correct.

They both seem to just be a single unit of meaning.

It’s an English idiom thing that I just continually stumble over. Anyone able to correct that in my head once and for all – much appreciated!

From the comments, I understand that I may have oversimplified in saying that 'a lot' and 'at least' were pairs of words. That being the case, I'd update my question as to why there is a space in that word, and if they are part of a larger set of words/lexemes that are similarly constructed.

Also, this is my first question, so if anyone has feedback on the tags I used, that would also be welcome. I wondered about applying the tag ‘grammatical-number’ for instance, but that didn’t seem as correct as the five I chose.. not sure though.

I understand I checked off an answer too quickly - I wish there were a way to accept multiple answers! Next time I'll wait longer though.

C.S.
  • 479
  • 1
    Linguist David Crystal introduced the term 'lexeme' for 'a string of 1 or more orthographic words carrying a base unit of meaning'. So go, goes, going, gone, went constitute 1 lexeme, and particle board, particle-board, particleboard another one. More complicated examples are ship of the desert when used as a synonym for camel, and come to where this is the multi-word verb meaning 'regain consciousness'. Compound prepositions such as on top of (compare the old-fashioned near-synonym 'atop' and German 'auf') also qualify. Note that multi-word lexemes exist, ... – Edwin Ashworth Oct 27 '21 at 14:04
  • 2
    and that English is idiosyncratic (The box is on top of the table, but The box is under/beneath the table). 'On top of' is unremarkable, and as correct grammatically (and as idiomatic) as 'on' or 'underneath'. – Edwin Ashworth Oct 27 '21 at 14:04
  • I suspect the reason is that there are two forms: singular "lot", which is determined by "a", and plural "lots", which does not take a determiner. – BillJ Oct 27 '21 at 14:29
  • @EdwinAshworth Thank you for introducing me to 'lexeme', I hadn't heard of that yet! All your examples are fascinating and helpful. Much appreciated. – C.S. Oct 27 '21 at 15:12
  • @BillJ Yes, I agree. And it feels like 'a lot' refers to a smaller quantity of something than 'lots', right? Thanks! – C.S. Oct 27 '21 at 15:13
  • In their use as non-count quantification nouns, I don't think there's any difference between "A lot of mistakes were made" vs "Lots of mistakes were made". – BillJ Oct 27 '21 at 15:26
  • @BillJ Oh ok. I guess I had pegged 'a lot' as 5-10 approximately (maybe 15), and 'lots' as being like 12-15 but also applicable to higher quantities. Probably idiosyncratic to where I've seen them both used though. – C.S. Oct 27 '21 at 15:43
  • 1
    I have the same problem. However, a lot is definitely two words, because the noun lot there can take a small number of modifiers: a whole* lot bigger* / not an awful* lot bigger* / didn’t make a huge* lot of difference*. Always best to wait a day or two before selecting an answer!] – Araucaria - Him Oct 27 '21 at 22:45
  • Set phrases have a habit of getting smushed together in English. If they don't get worn down straight into contractions (and even then in the case of cannot), you might find the phrase losing all its spaces, and even some letters as in the case of fulfil (full + fill) or al- compounds like also (all + so) or altogether (all + together). Even three word phrases aren't immune, consider "nevertheless". – No Name Oct 28 '21 at 00:18
  • If you merge “at least” into one word, would you do the same for “at most”, “at best”, “at worst”, etc? Would you extend this to all prepositional phrases? – Lawrence Oct 28 '21 at 02:48

2 Answers2

5

You're certainly not the first to feel an urge to merge "a lot" into "alot." Maybe the most revealing question would be, why does it feel like "it should be a single word"?

It's easy enough to explain why these examples are two words. Take "at least": they're just two words, just doing their things. We might have said "at the least," or any other wordier construction using "at": "at the very latest," "at a hazard," and not feel compelled to merge these phrases into a single word. Similarly, "a lot" is, well, a lot, a noun in its own right, which came from the idea of a portion or share (and "a lot" has come to imply a large portion). We might use "a" with any other noun: "a multitude," "a plethora," etc., and not go around creating such mutant monsters as "abunch."

So far so good, but wait; many pairs of small words have successfully gotten hitched. "Some thing," "any thing," and maybe the most parallel example, "a while"—why do these get to be something, anything, and awhile, but the poor old alot gets mocked and persecuted? I don't have any better answer to that than... languages move in mysterious ways. Accepted usage is what we use and what we accept. Maybe the alot (and maybe even the atleast and atmost?) will have their day... someday.

Andy Bonner
  • 5,752
  • 1
    Note, for some of these mashups, the two-word and one-word versions get different uses, like "a while" vs "awhile" or "every day" vs "everyday". For others, though, like "something," the merged form has so taken over the meaning of the two-word phrase that the two-word is squeezed into a corner, existing only for usages that emphasize the two words ("It's some... some thing!!"). – Andy Bonner Oct 27 '21 at 14:13
  • Thank you, this is very helpful! Yes, that inconsistency you highlight is what perplexes me.. something, anything, also sometimes are all single words. Also I think I like 'alot' better than 'a lot' because 'lot' has so many different meanings. I'll try to stay on track with current usage. Thanks! – C.S. Oct 27 '21 at 15:08
  • @4dcndn Feel free to campaign for its acceptance (I would say start a campaign, but I bet it exists already). Many quixotic crusaders have shed ink trying to bend the arc of linguistic evolution toward common sense (I'm looking at you, George Bernard Shaw), usually with little result, but... why not! – Andy Bonner Oct 27 '21 at 15:16
  • A lot is definitely two words, because the noun lot there can take a small number of modifiers: a whole* lot bigger* / not an awful* lot bigger* / didn’t make a huge* lot of difference. Notice that the indefinite article changes to an before a vowel*. – Araucaria - Him Oct 27 '21 at 22:52
  • 1
    @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. And yet, "another" is one word, despite passing this same test ("a whole other thing") – No Name Oct 28 '21 at 00:03
  • 1
    @NoName (And then there's the colloquial "a whole 'nuther thing," which gets the best of both words...) – Andy Bonner Oct 28 '21 at 00:09
  • @AndyBonner Actually, "whole nother" uses the old and well established 13th century determinative "nother" People often mistakenly take to be a bastardisation of "an other" with an infix! It isn't! – Araucaria - Him Oct 28 '21 at 00:15
  • @NoName But is another one word in the actual language (as opposed to the orthography)? I think not! – Araucaria - Him Oct 28 '21 at 00:16
  • @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. Then what's stopping us from writing "alot" if not this test? – No Name Oct 28 '21 at 00:22
  • 1
    @NoName It doesn't matter what we write, really. That's just convention. It can change overnight. There's no wrong or right of it. :) – Araucaria - Him Oct 28 '21 at 00:24
  • 1
    @Araucaria-Nothereanymore. So long as we agree! – No Name Oct 28 '21 at 00:26
  • The "a-" could also, theoretically, stem from the *ga-prefix, cp. *aware, enough, yclept". In addition the origin of "lot" is uncertain, and the supposed derivation of the quantificative sense is speculative. How does your answer address those concerns? It doesn't, simply, because you are not even a ware! But at least you are a awarewolf about the arbitrary spelling. – vectory Nov 02 '21 at 06:02
  • @vectory Thanks, I wasn't aware of the etymology of the "a-" prefix; I'd like to find out more about that. I certainly make no claim to address all concerns; in fact, although the question has the "etymology" tag, it isn't really brought up in the question. Meanwhile, I hope we can stay careful about how we describe other users, or maybe you were referring to the editors of Etymonline, who simply give "another" as "early 13c merger of an + other." (The entry for "other" does in fact show the "an-" roots you mention, though) – Andy Bonner Nov 02 '21 at 12:24
2

They're not two words. They're spelled with a space, but that's just spelling, not language. Many languages don't space between words, or -- what amounts to the same thing -- don't consider "words" the same as English does.

Spaces and spelling are irrelevant to actual language. Would an illiterate English speaker think of at least or a lot as two words?

John Lawler
  • 107,887
  • I think a non-literate intelligent speaker would indeed regard a lot as two words because there are an, albeit very limited, number of modifiers that can be used with lot. For example: whole, huge, awful, very. – Araucaria - Him Oct 27 '21 at 22:36
  • 1
    I think this is a poor answer. They may represent a single concept, but they do it using two words -- words are the things we separate with spaces when writing. – Barmar Nov 01 '21 at 18:15
  • @Barmar go ahead, define "word", do it, in under 512 characters, I dare you – vectory Nov 04 '21 at 16:51
  • From Lexico: "A single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed." What you're describing I would call a "term". – Barmar Nov 04 '21 at 17:00