Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

"Alot" is not a word

J

Josh Ray

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Points
0
http://www.ehow.com/how_4518577_use-a-lotallotalot.html

The adverb "lot" means to a very great degree or extent. This is also usually used in the form of "a lot". Example I feel a lot better after eating the chicken soup.

The verb "allot" means to parcel out or distribute. Example You need to allot each speaker enough time to discuss their topics.

"Alot" does not exist and should never be found in your writing.
Click to expand...
 
......that if applied to a CV would mean job seekers would have to continue their search for alternative employment. The lack of spelling and grammar these days is quite saddening.....

Cheers,
Mark.
 
Mark Thorpe said:
......that if applied to a CV would mean job seekers would have to continue their search for alternative employment. The lack of spelling and grammar these days is quite saddening.....

Cheers,
Mark.
Click to expand...


It is, I've gotten job responses in txt form...

Z
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
It's alternative spelling....
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is no benefit in wasting all this time worrying about how things are spelled, as long as you can understand what the writer intended.

In fact, I think we waste a *lot* of time on spelling when it could be much easier. I propose a multi-year plan for making spelling *alot* easier:

In Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

[--Mark Twain]
 
Not only is it grammatically incorrect, many have a problem with:

there - as in, over there...
they're - compound of they are, as in they're gonna buy a RED...
their - possessive, as in, their RED camera was blown up in the SFX snafu...
 
this is alot of nonsense....take to the grammer forum
 
Proper spelling and grammar are the foundations of civilization and should be respected and preserved.

Too many on this list loose there patience to soon weather they lick it or knot...

My ninth grade English teacher must be rolling in his perfectly structured grave...
 
While we're on the subject...

While we're on the subject...

People, stop writing "more then..." or "better then..." The correct word is "THAN," with an "A". Use it when making a comparison.

THEN is an adverb of time

THAN is a conjunction used as a function word to indicate difference of kind, manner, or identity
 
There are far more serious things going on in the world today.

I am of course talking about people who write "would of", "should of" and "could of". You never see "they of" though. Maybe it just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily.
 
Zoomoo said:
No it's not. It's like spelling colour without a u. It's just wrong.
Click to expand...

That's funny... Some of us feel it's wrong to stick an extra u where it's not needed. I like my color just the way it is. :usd:

I guess I can tolerate those with poor grammar, especially when english is not their primary language. But what really bothers me is when people substitute letters or numbers for words. I bet many of u would agree with me? :angry03:

Lately I receive so many emails with letters and numbers all over the place. It's like reading an extended edition of a resurrected text message from '04. Anyway, I just trash those emails and don't honor them with a response. I don't care how important they may be.

jimhare said:
Proper spelling and grammar are the foundations of civilization and should be respected and preserved.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There are many times I have to read something on here more than once because someone wrote "there" instead of "their". I don't want to be a net Nazi or a member of the grammar police. I think that's even worse than the fashion police. But when I see multiple examples every day, of how a surprisingly large number of people don't know the difference between there, their and they're. ...To, two and too... Even desert and dessert have been an issue. I can understand missing or adding that second "s" on accident, but there's a thread around here where several people honestly didn't know the difference and it was funny as hell.
 
I use alot alot :biggrin:
 
Mark Thorpe said:
......that if applied to a CV would mean job seekers would have to continue their search for alternative employment. The lack of spelling and grammar these days is quite saddening.....

Cheers,
Mark.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. And not just in writing.

I've been in meetings where people use phrases such as "more better" and one guy even said "stuff and stuff..."

Needless to say they don't instill a lot of confidence.
 
Proper spelling and grammar are the foundations of civilization and should be respected and preserved.
Click to expand...
I disagree. :) Proper spelling and grammar has not helped human problems like war. Humans will still occasionally do terrible things to one another... even if we had perfect grammar.

I think that sometimes language is used to create barriers for others. When it comes to academia (and other fields), there is a high level of complex sentences and big words. (Heck, lets throw in the word verbiage.) This creates the illusion that the academics know what the hell they're talking about. And sometimes this lets them cloak the fact that their ideas are untested and possibly bogus.

The same criticism can be made about technical presentations when it comes to film/video. I've seen some papers and presentations where a lot of graphs and big words are thrown around, only to arrive at some questionable conclusions. e.g. there is a paper on Bayer being inferior to 3-chip capture... or a claim that bayer has 1/8th the resolution of 3-chip. One only has to look at existing equipment to see that there are some of the best cameras use Bayer (especially dSLRs), and resolution is way beyond 1/8th. And I think that language helps hide the fact that the conclusions are sometimes out of touch with reality.
But some people will be fooled into thinking that the speaker actually knows what the heck they're talking about. And beware of people speaking at SMPTE events... some people know what they're talking about, and some people don't. You won't figure it out based on the speaker's grammar.

And if it means anything, I'm a Canadian who prefers spelling color without a u.
 
Grammar is an interesting thing when it comes to a "tech" forum; we use so many words and especially abbreviations that aren't typically found in regular dictionaries. Examples include "uprezzing", "downrezzing", and the like.

As long the message is clear, and comprehensible, then I have no qualms with new words or alternate spellings. My favorite of all though, is funnest.
 
Craig Ryan said:
Grammar is an interesting thing when it comes to a "tech" forum; we use so many words and especially abbreviations that aren't typically found in regular dictionaries. Examples include "uprezzing", "downrezzing", and the like.

As long the message is clear, and comprehensible, then I have no qualms with new words or alternate spellings. My favorite of all though, is funnest.
Click to expand...

Steve may have an eye for amazing design but he's certainly no thesaurus... or dictionary.
Maybe he just can't spell very well.
 
Daniel Browning said:
Agreed. There is no benefit in wasting all this time worrying about how things are spelled, as long as you can understand what the writer intended.

In fact, I think we waste a *lot* of time on spelling when it could be much easier. I propose a multi-year plan for making spelling *alot* easier:

In Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.

[--Mark Twain]
Click to expand...

I luv tis! Marwelus!
 
Maybe it is just the old dog in me but if I have people working for me I want them to have a grasp on the grammar handle. If for whatever reason they would be required to send in a field report or promotional dossier then it should be presented in a professional manner, clearly written and with correct spelling. Would anyone here seriously accept a screenplay or script sent to them that was full of spelling and, or, grammatical mistakes?

Cheers,
Mark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top