# There are <a lot of><many> books



## Akasaka

Hi all,
I am learning the difference between "a lot of" and "many."

1. There are *a lot of* books in the library.
2. There are *many* books in the library.

Which is more natural? And if one of the two sentences is unnatural, does it mean it is next to ungrammatical?

Best Regards


----------



## User1001

Akasaka said:


> Hi all,
> I am learning the difference between "a lot of" and "many."
> 
> 1. There are *a lot of* books in the library.
> 2. There are *many* books in the library.
> 
> Which is more natural? And if one of the two sentences is unnatural, does it mean it is next to ungrammatical?
> 
> Best Regards



They are both grammatically correct, and I personally think they are both natural. I'd say that "many" is below "a lot of" in the classification based on category, so you'd probably hear "many" said more often. That's just my opinion though.


----------



## jabogitlu

Hi   Both are standard English, but the second is more "literary" and would be likely found in a book itself, or on the news, etc.  At least in America.

A more "natural" way to say #1 is "There's lots of books in the library," or "There are lots of books in the library."


----------



## Joelline

They are both correct and natural.  It is true that "a lot of" is a bit more informal than "many," but it is still correct.  I'll admit that in very formal academic *writing,* I would not use "a lot of"; however, I'm a bit of a conservative!


----------



## Akasaka

Thanks for helping me. I have one more additional question.
*3. Many* students know that.
*4. A lot of* students know that.

What you said applies to these sentences, too? They are both correct and natural?


----------



## Joelline

Yes: they are both correct and natural (and the 2nd sentence is slightly less formal than the first).


----------



## Akasaka

Joelline said:


> Yes: they are both correct and natural (and the 2nd sentence is slightly less formal than the first).


 
Thanks a lot, Joelline. I see there's not a big difference between them, although my grammar book seem to tell me I have to distinguish between them. It says, I have to use "a lot of" before a noun which is not the subject of the sentence, and "many" for a subject noun.


----------



## jabogitlu

Nah, that's preposterous, at least among regular use.

But again I reiterate it's also common (dare I say more common) to hear "Lots of students..." in place of "A lot of students..."


----------



## zhubinhua100

oh-oh, I could learn more from what has been writen above,and know the difference between "a lot of" and "many."


----------



## CiegoEnamorado

jabogitlu said:


> A more "natural" way to say #1 is "There's lots of books in the library"


 
You could say there is, but to me it would sound a bit funny. Because lots and books are plural, I'd make the verb plural, too, and say "there are lots of books in the library." That's just how my brain works, though, I guess. 

In regards to the question, I would say that *a lot (of)* is colloquial, while *many* may be used in more formal colloquial English but you would find it in more literature and formal writings.


----------



## Joelline

Akasaka said:


> Thanks a lot, Joelline. I see there's not a big difference between them, although my grammar book seem to tell me I have to distinguish between them. It says, I have to use "a lot of" before a noun which is not the subject of the sentence, and "many" for a subject noun.


 
I'll admit, Akasaka, that I've never heard of this rule, and that, in practice, it is not observed in AE (I can't speak for BE).  

There is an interesting and extremely useful site for those learning English as a foreign language at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/537/01/   You might want to consult it as well.


----------



## winklepicker

Akasaka said:


> Hi all,
> I am learning the difference between "a lot of" and "many."
> 
> 1. There are *a lot of* books in the library.
> 2. There are *many* books in the library.


 
The essential rule here is when you are writing you need to distinguish between countable and uncountable nouns - much honour, many people.

In speech, however, there is often no time to think whether a noun is countable or not, and a nice cheat is to say 'a lot of'. This way, you will never be wrong.



Akasaka said:


> ...my grammar book seem to tell me I have to distinguish between them. It says, I have to use "a lot of" before a noun which is not the subject of the sentence, and "many" for a subject noun.


 
This sounds like nonsense: do they give any examples? Can you tell us more?


----------



## Akasaka

winklepicker said:


> In speech, however, there is often no time to think whether a noun is countable or not, and a nice cheat is to say 'a lot of'. This way, you will never be wrong.
> 
> This sounds like nonsense: do they give any examples? Can you tell us more?


 
I agree with you that "a lot of" is "a nice cheat," but after all you need to know whether a noun is countable or not, because even if you say "a lot of [money]", or "a lot of [coin],"  you need to make countable nouns plural, and uncountable nouns as it is.

As for the nonsense, the book gives some sentences with some comments.
I have a lot of books.  *natural*
I have many books. *rare *
Many students know it. *natural*
A lot of students know it. *rare*


----------



## winklepicker

Akasaka said:


> As for the nonsense, the book gives some sentences with some comments.
> I have a lot of books. *natural*
> I have many books. *rare *
> Many students know it. *natural*
> A lot of students know it. *rare*


 
As I thought: this is poppycock. I personally have many books about English usage, and a lot of our TEFL students have benefited from the fact.


----------



## panjandrum

It is unusual in these forums to use such extreme words as preposterous, nonsense or poppycock.

Remember that those teaching English often develop guidelines for usage that native speakers never need because they absorb the usage from birth.  

It would be interesting to examine usage to see if there is actually any evidence for the suggestions made.


----------



## winklepicker

panjandrum said:


> It is unusual in these forums to use such extreme words as preposterous, nonsense or poppycock.


 
Apologies. I would never use such language about another contributor to this forum - only about a book that seems (on the face of it) unhelpful. I will moderate myself in future.


----------



## Joelline

Akasaka,

If you are a student, why don't you ask your teacher what he or she thinks about this rule? If the rule is being enforced in your class, I'd certainly learn it and use it if I were you. When you think about it, no native speaker would think it strange (or even notice) if you followed the "rule" in sentences like the following;



> I have a lot of books. *natural*
> I have many books. *rare *
> Many students know it. *natural*
> A lot of students know it. *rare*


 
Of course no native speaker would think twice if you reversed these examples (and used the so-called "rare" forms), either--but your teacher might!


----------



## cheshire

> I have a lot of books. *natural*
> I have many books. *rare *
> Many students know it. *natural*
> A lot of students know it. *rare*


As much as I respect all the informative input by native speakers here, it's also worth delving into why one grammarian put together this list. There must be a reason. Even though some descriptions written by non-natives may be inappropriate, in most cases they asked for themselves from natives or interpreted their writing. So far it seems none of forer@ have agreed with the list. We non-natives have to find the source and bring it here.


----------



## Vikorr

You know, seeing the word 'lots' in one of the posts made me curious, because such a word shouldn't exist ('lot' being already plural).

Cambridge online dictionary didn't have it.

Oxford said :
 • *noun* *1* treated as sing. or pl. informal a particular group or set of people or things.

So it seems 'lots' has just been adopted into common use, but isn't grammatically correct (had just never thought about it before).


----------



## kurumin

_a lot_ is informal
_many_ is formal

both are ''natural''.


----------



## cuchuflete

Vikorr said:


> You know, seeing the word 'lots' in one of the posts made me curious, because such a word shouldn't exist ('lot' being already plural).
> 
> Cambridge online dictionary didn't have it.
> 
> Oxford said :
> • *noun* *1* treated as sing. or pl. informal a particular group or set of people or things.
> 
> So it seems 'lots' has just been adopted into common use, but isn't grammatically correct (had just never thought about it before).



Bah, Humbug!
The idea that "a word shouldn't exist" is applicable to any neolgism.  Some become standard parts of a language.

Oxford didn't say that it "isn't grammatically correct".  They classified it as "informal".  There is a difference.

Dueling dictionary time:

Random House Unabridged:



> _noun. _Often, *lots.* a great many or a great deal: a lot of books; lots of money.
> 
> _adverb. _Often, *lots.* a great deal; greatly: Thanks a lot for the ride. I care lots about my family.


 Note the lack of "colloquial" or "informal".   This dictionary's lexicographers accept the word as standard usage.

Princeton Wordnet:



> *lots*
> _noun_a large number or amount; "made lots of new friends"



Cambridge Advanced Learners and American Heritage do not include lots.

Take your pick.


----------



## Vikorr

> Bah, Humbug!


Well, yes, I was being quite so 

But you have to admit, a plural of a plural is odd  (admittedly 'lot' is treated as singular even though it's plural...how can anyone think English is complicated)


----------



## caballoschica

Many can sometimes be informal...Especially when used for emphasis...

I've done that so many times! (Stress on the so)  OR I've done that maaaaaaaaaany times! (Elongate the a)

Or another way to emphasize a lot of is I have a LOT of....(Stress the lot)

I've been playing tennis for many years.   That sounds better than the following:

I've been playing tennis for a lot of years.  I think this is hardly used, it sounds a bit odd to me.  At least I haven't used it much.  Yet I normally state the approximate number of years I've been playing tennis.  

Well, that's my two cents.


----------



## Stefan Ivanovich

kurumin said:


> _a lot_ is informal
> _many_ is formal
> 
> both are ''natural''.


Would they be equally "natural" in positive sentences (I have...)?
Would they be equally "natural" in non-positive sentences (negative in the broadest sense: I don't have/Do you have/I wouldn't think you have...)?
(I wouldn't ask if this *parallel thread* were not developing right now)


----------



## winklepicker

Vikorr said:


> You know, seeing the word 'lots' in one of the posts made me curious, because such a word shouldn't exist ('lot' being already plural).... So it seems 'lots' has just been adopted into common use, but isn't grammatically correct (had just never thought about it before).


 
IS 'lot' plural? I don't think so, and none of my references think so. 

I've got a lot of old clothes. I've got two lots: the ones for the charity shop, and the ones for the dump. There are five separate lots of cash to go to different banks. I love you lots.



Stefan Ivanovich said:


> Would they be equally "natural" in positive sentences (I have...)?
> Would they be equally "natural" in non-positive sentences (negative in the broadest sense: I don't have/Do you have/I wouldn't think you have...)?
> (I wouldn't ask if this *parallel thread* were not developing right now)


 
I've got lots of money. 
I've got a lot of money.
I've got much money.  
I haven't got a lot of money. 
Have you got lots of money? 
I haven't got much money. 
Have you not got a lot of money? 

So - nice and inconsistent then...

Does AE differ here, preferring 'I don't have...'?


----------



## Vikorr

> Is 'lot' plural?


My apologies - bad English on my part. A 'Lot' refers to 'many, or quite a few more than one' which is normally deemed plural, but the word 'lot' is treated in the singular (I mentioned this in a subsequent thread). The effect of 'lots' is one of saying 'more than one of many' or 'the plural of many' or 'the plural of 2458 (or any other number that = a lot)'...which of course is silly.


----------



## winklepicker

Vikorr said:


> My apologies - bad English on my part. Lot refers to 'more than one' which is normally deemed plural, but the word 'lot' is treated in the singular (I mentioned this in a subsequent thread). The effect of 'lots' is one of saying 'more than one of many', which of course is silly.


 
Here we part company. What makes you say that lot means 'more than one'? In my view it means a group of things, and is no more plural than 'group', 'collection', or 'gathering'.

Have you any external evidence for your view? I couldn't find any. Please check it out before you post again, because I'm convinced you're mistaken.


----------



## Vikorr

Hi winepickler...hmmm...point there.


----------



## gaer

Akasaka said:


> I agree with you that "a lot of" is "a nice cheat," but after all you need to know whether a noun is countable or not, because even if you say "a lot of [money]", or "a lot of [coin]," you need to make countable nouns plural, and uncountable nouns as it is.
> 
> As for the nonsense, the book gives some sentences with some comments.
> I have a lot of books. *natural*
> I have many books. *rare *
> Many students know it. *natural*
> A lot of students know it. *rare*


This is ridiculous!

Results 1 - 10 of about 537,000 for "lot of students".

Your book is apparently trying to apply a prescriptive rule, but it does so inconsistently.

"A lot of" would be described my many (a lot of) people as less formal, more common in speech.

Whenever I see such examples (such as the ones you have shown us), I always wonder who writes such books. I can't believe that people who speak English as their native language would come to such conclusions.


----------



## gaer

Vikorr said:


> Well, yes, I was being quite so
> 
> But you have to admit, a plural of a plural is odd (admittedly 'lot' is treated as singular even though it's plural...how can anyone think English is complicated)


I hear the same argument about "folks", another plural of a plural.


----------



## cheshire

http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/Determiners7a.cfm

Hi. I'd like you to take a look at this link. 





> *Note:* *much *and *many* are used in negative and question forms.
> In positive statements, we use *a lot of.*


----------



## cheshire

(3)We laughed *a lot*. 
(4)The budget for the universities in the state of Minnesota has grown *a lot*.​Can we replace "a lot" with "much" in these sentences?


----------



## panjandrum

Vikorr said:


> [...]
> Oxford said :
> • *noun* *1* treated as sing. or pl. informal a particular group or set of people or things.[...]


Oxford also said:
*9.* _colloq._ A considerable number, quantity, or amount; a good deal, a great deal. Used in sing. (*a lot*) and plur.; 
There are lots of examples using lots.


----------



## jabogitlu

> I've got lots of money.
> I've got a lot of money.
> I've got much money.
> I haven't got a lot of money.
> Have you got lots of money?
> I haven't got much money.
> Have you not got a lot of money?
> 
> So - nice and inconsistent then...
> 
> Does AE differ here, preferring 'I don't have...'?



Yeah, I'd think that for most AE speakers, the last four would be more commonly:

I don't have a lot of money
Do you have lots of money?
I don't have much money
Don't you have a lot of money?

It's also common in rural/inner-city or otherwise colloquial AE to just hear "You got a lot of money?"


----------



## Vikorr

> There are lots of examples using lots.


Hi Pan

Now that I've had a bit more time to think about it, 'a lot' which, as winepickler said, is treated in the singular like 'a group'...when plural, you can refer to '(several) groups' in English, and 'several lots', but 'lots' commonly is used by people to mean exactly the same as 'a lot', not 'several lots'.

I'm not saying that 'lots' isn't commonly accepted or understood in English - it is... just that it's usage struck me as odd while I was reading the posts.


----------



## gaer

Vikorr said:


> I'm not saying that 'lots' isn't commonly accepted or understood in English - it is... just that it's usage struck me as odd while I was reading the posts.


I find that almost everything I see here looks odd if I think about it too much, even things that are totally correct. 

Gaer


----------



## john_riemann_soong

The concept as I suspect is more semantic than grammatical. 

It's also a good aid to check the etymology of "lot": 



> O.E. hlot "object (anything from dice to straw, but often a chip of wood with a name inscribed on it) used to determine someone's share," also "what falls to a person by lot," from P.Gmc. *khlutom
> 
> ...
> 
> The generalized sense of "great many" is first attested in *1812*.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lot

As you can see, this sense developed quite late - less than 200 years ago - decades _after_ the American Revolution!  

It's curious how "a lot" of books is (are) plural ... it's the way it's evolved that even the singular indefinite article gets ignored in judging its number. Consider:

A lot of people [the masses] watch television. 
A lot of people [slaves] watch*es* television. [It was a dark and stormy night ... ] 

I have a feeling that "a lot" feels more indefinite than "many". Many, as it seems, invites the audience to ask the speaker to specify them. 

"I have a lot of books." [Who should I give them to?]]
"I have lots of books." [I can't read them all.]
"I have many books." [Shall I read out their titles?] 

"I have a lot of fish." [I wonder if I can sell them all.]
"I have lots of fish!" [I'll never run out!]
"I have many fish." [Take your pick.]


----------



## gaer

john_riemann_soong said:


> I have a feeling that "a lot" feels more indefinite than "many". Many, as it seems, invites the audience to ask the speaker to specify them.
> 
> "I have a lot of books." [Who should I give them to?]]
> "I have lots of books." [I can't read them all.]
> "I have many books." [Shall I read out their titles?]
> 
> "I have a lot of fish." [I wonder if I can sell them all.]
> "I have lots of fish!" [I'll never run out!]
> "I have many fish." [Take your pick.]


The answer, I think, is in the definition "a great many". When I think of "lots" of books or "a lot" of books, I think of "a great many" books, not just "many".

Gaer


----------



## river

Check out a quick survey of 'much/many' vs. 'a lot' on 
Language Log.  "What's really striking about the table is that _many_ occurs most often in academic writing; this is consistent with the proposal that this determiner is in fact stylistically marked, as formal." Arnold Zwicky


----------



## gaer

river said:


> Check out a quick survey of 'much/many' vs. 'a lot' on
> Language Log. "What's really striking about the table is that _many_ occurs most often in academic writing; this is consistent with the proposal that this determiner is in fact stylistically marked, as formal." Arnold Zwicky


I looked at the length and thought, "This is ridiculous."

Then I thought, "Well, I don't have a life, at least at the moment, so I'll 'give it a try'."

In fact, I found it very interesting, most of all because the writer did not force his opinions but simply suplied a lot of data and gave many things to think about.

I still feel that "a lot of" is much close to "a great many" and "a considerable amount" than simply "many" or "much", at least in many sentences.

This was fascinating to me:

"Do you want much to eat?"

His point was that this structure signals the wish for or expectation of a negative answer. And this links to:

I don't want much to eat.
I'm hungry. I want a lot [a considerable amount] to eat.

It appears to me that the ESL pages mentioned make some very points!

Gaer


----------



## cheshire

> Although it is often said that _much_ and _many_ are used for questions, we usually use them for questions which expect a negative response.  For example:
> - Do you want a lot of pizza?
> I expect you want to eat a lot.
> - Do you want much pizza?
> This sounds unusual, as though I expect you don't want to eat much.


My guess was denied there but I still think this example shows that "much" and "many" are ones of NPIs.
They are not altogether NPIs, but at least have some portion of it.


----------



## winklepicker

cheshire said:


> http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/Determiners7a.cfm
> 
> Hi. I'd like you to take a look at this link.


 
Hi cheshire.

I don't think you should refine too much on this. Many (a lot of) English tuition systems provide 'rules' to make life simpler for learners; but few of (not a lot of) these are absolute. And I don't think the NPI thing works, because you can use nearly all of them negatively. 

The following are all perfectly correct in BE (and not 'rare'!):

I have a lot of books. 
I have many books about English. (_I have many books_ is odd.)
Many students know it.
A lot of students know it.
I've got lots of money.
I've got a lot of money.
I haven't got a lot of money.
Have you got lots of money?
I haven't got much money. 
Have you not got a lot of money?

In AE as we've established, the same principle applies but prefers 'I don't have' to 'I haven't got'.


----------



## LV4-26

Akasaka said:


> my grammar book [...] says, I have to use "a lot of" before a noun which is *not the subject *of the sentence, and "many" *for a subject noun.*


(My emphasis)


			
				Akasaka said:
			
		

> As for the nonsense, the book gives some sentences with some comments.
> I have a lot of books. *natural*
> I have many books. *rare *
> Many students know it. *natural*
> A lot of students know it. *rare*





gaer said:


> This is ridiculous!
> Results 1 - 10 of about 537,000 for "lot of students".


This is not fair! 
Among the 537,000 there are surely as many of both kinds (subjects and non-subjects). For the search to be significant you'd have to restrict it to the sentences where "lot of + N" is the subject.

I tried the exact sentence. Of course, it isn't really significant either due to the little number of hits for either option. But I'm giving it to you all the same.
many students know it : 29
a lot of students know it : 5


----------



## panjandrum

*663,000* for *"**many** of us **will*
*38,100* for *"**a lot** of us **will*

*1,120,000* for *"**many** of us are*
*278,000* for *"**a lot** of us are*

*485,000* for *"**many** of us were*
*77,500* for *"**a lot** of us were*

*350,000* for *"many of us know*
*17,300* for *"a lot of us know*

*668,000* for *"to many of us*
*66,300* for *"to **a lot** of us*

*1,040,000* for *"for many of us*
*175,000* for *"for a lot of us*

Well that's interesting, probably, though all it really shows is that some of us have more time to spare today than others


----------



## john_riemann_soong

You have to remember what people were using before the 1800s - they didn't have "a lot". Because the age of "a lot" it's so recent, this cannot be a steadfast grammatical rule. Shakespeare did pretty fine without it.


----------



## cheshire

To LV: If you add "-so many" to the search the result might be a bit different.

To panjandrum: "many" and "much" are preferred over "a lot" when they are used as nouns, not adjectives. Is that right?

To winklepicker: If you don't think the NPI thing works, could you tell me whether you agree with this or not?:





> Although it is often said that _much_ and _many_ are used for questions, we usually use them for questions which expect a negative response. For example:
> - Do you want a lot of pizza?
> I expect you want to eat a lot.
> - Do you want much pizza?
> This sounds unusual, as though I expect you don't want to eat much.


 


> I have a lot of books.
> I have many books about English. (_I have many books_ is odd.)
> Many students know it.
> A lot of students know it.
> I've got lots of money.
> I've got a lot of money.
> I haven't got a lot of money.
> Have you got lots of money?
> I haven't got much money.
> Have you not got a lot of money?


Could you tell me if this is also natural in other English variations, such as American English?


----------



## gaer

LV4-26 said:


> (My emphasis)
> This is not fair!
> Among the 537,000 there are surely as many of both kinds (subjects and non-subjects). For the search to be significant you'd have to restrict it to the sentences where "lot of + N" is the subject.


(This was about:


> Results 1 - 10 of about 537,000 for "lot of students".


You have a good point, but the problem is that there is no search feature that allows us to do something so advanced.


> I tried the exact sentence. Of course, it isn't really significant either due to the little number of hits for either option. But I'm giving it to you all the same.
> many students know it : 29
> a lot of students know it : 5


Here's one for you that surprised me:

Your search - *"lots of students study hard"* - did not match any documents.
Results 1 - 2 of about 12 for "a lot of students study hard".
Results 1 - 10 of about 138 for "many students study hard".

So far usage seems to support you! 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

panjandrum said:


> *663,000* for *"**many** of us **will*
> *38,100* for *"**a lot** of us **will*
> 
> *1,120,000* for *"**many** of us are*
> *278,000* for *"**a lot** of us are*
> 
> *485,000* for *"**many** of us were*
> *77,500* for *"**a lot** of us were*
> 
> *350,000* for *"many of us know*
> *17,300* for *"a lot of us know*
> 
> *668,000* for *"to many of us*
> *66,300* for *"to **a lot** of us*
> 
> *1,040,000* for *"for many of us*
> *175,000* for *"for a lot of us*
> 
> Well that's interesting, probably, though all it really shows is that some of us have more time to spare today than others


But it is interesting, because when a verb follows, your results support LV4-26!

Next question: does this hold for informal register in conversation, especially in the US?

Now I'm really confused.

I wonder if other people might tend to write "many" but say "a lot"?

Gaer


----------



## LV4-26

gaer said:


> But it is interesting, because when a verb follows, your results support LV4-26! *Akasaka's grammar book*.


Let's give back to Caesar...... Only the "googling" is mine.
I wasn't sure the question implied in Akasaka's posts #7 and #13 had been well understood or thoroughly addressed. What was said there, though probably excessive (especially the word "rare"), didn't seem totally extravagant to me, so I checked.

This certainly doesn't reflect a rule, in the prescriptive sense, but I believe it shows some sort of an instinctive tendency to prefer "many" when the noun is in subject position (hence, before a verb). A tendency which is far from unanimous, of course. The only conclusion I would feel reasonably safe to hazard would be that, among those who say "_I've got a lot of books"_, a substantial proportion will say "_many students know it_", rather than "_a lot of students know it"._

Why it is so would be interesting to know. As often, I would assume it is a matter of sentence rhythm.


----------



## Birmingham

Akasaka said:


> Hi all,
> I am learning the difference between "a lot of" and "many."
> 
> 1. There are *a lot of* books in the library.
> 2. There are *many* books in the library.
> 
> Which is more natural? And if one of the two sentences is unnatural, does it mean it is next to ungrammatical?



In informal speach I would say "There's a lot of books".

Formally, I would say "There are a lot of books" if I wanted to emphasize the high quantity, and "There are many books" if I wanted to emphasize the object (books).

Hope that helps


----------



## gaer

LV4-26 said:


> Let's give back to Caesar...... Only the "googling" is mine.
> I wasn't sure the question implied in Akasaka's posts #7 and #13 had been well understood or thoroughly addressed. What was said there, though probably excessive (especially the word "rare"), didn't seem totally extravagant to me, so I checked.
> 
> This certainly doesn't reflect a rule, in the prescriptive sense, but I believe it shows some sort of an instinctive tendency to prefer "many" when the noun is in subject position (hence, before a verb). A tendency which is far from unanimous, of course. The only conclusion I would feel reasonably safe to hazard would be that, among those who say "_I've got a lot of books"_, a substantial proportion will say "_many students know it_", rather than "_a lot of students know it"._
> 
> Why it is so would be interesting to know. As often, I would assume it is a matter of sentence rhythm.


I agree. I agree with everything you said, but I still wonder if there is not also a sharp difference in spoken and written usage.

I use "a lot of" and "lots of" with "a lot of students". 

When I write, I seem to switch to "many". I have NO idea why!

Gaer


----------



## Birmingham

Having thought about the question more, I should say that 'many' is best used in longer phrases and 'a lot of' is best used in shorter phrases; thus appropriating most ideal phrase lengths. For example:

There are many books here. (This is unnaturally short and snappy.)

There are a lot of books here. (This is better but may still be too short and snappy.)

There are a quite a lot of books here. (This is well phrased.)

There are rather many books here. (This is formal and quite natural; not too snappy.)

There are many books in the library. (Formal, and quite natural as this sentence is longer than the first, but would be smoother with the addition of the word "rather".)

There are a lot of books in the library. (Very smooth and clear; could be softened with the use of the word "quite" if the desired effect is to be vague.)


----------



## winklepicker

Birmingham said:


> rather many


 
Are you sure? I don't think I've ever heard this construction.


----------



## Birmingham

winklepicker said:


> Are you sure? I don't think I've ever heard this construction.


 
Quite sure. This is very smooth speech. 

For examples of such phraseology by UK Government and academic organisations, see:
google.com/search?q=%22rather+many%22+site%3Agov.uk+OR+site%3Aac.uk

<< For further discussion of "rather many" see the thread Rather many >>
​


----------



## LV4-26

Birmingham said:


> Having thought about the question more, I should say that 'many' is best used in longer phrases and 'a lot of' is best used in shorter phrases; thus appropriating most ideal phrase lengths.


I think you're right. That's what I meant when I used the word "rhythm". Before uttering a sentence, I believe we more or less consciously make a quick assessment of what should be its ideal rhythm. Hence, we opt for some words or phrases preferably to others.
This ideal rhythm is subjective but, obviously, some overall patterns can be observed.


			
				Gaer said:
			
		

> When I write, I seem to switch to "many". I have NO idea why!





			
				river said:
			
		

> Language Log. "What's really striking about the table is that _many_ occurs most often in academic writing; this is consistent with the proposal that this determiner is in fact stylistically marked, as formal." Arnold Zwicky


This remains true whatever we've said, doesn't it? Only, there are some additional factors that often override the above descriptive "rule". 
You people may have noticed that it's true for many (all?) other linguistic issues and for many (all?) other languages. The choice of a particular word or grammatical construction is dependent on a number of factors (most of the time ignored by prescriptive grammars) that the speaker intuitively _weighs_ against each other.

Conclusion : the statement that _a lot of/lots of_ sounds more natural in speech is true, except when it is counterbalanced by other contextual parameters (in your case, Gaer, it is not). Which is a handy way out that doesn't explain anything.


----------



## cheshire

That is impressive, that is impressive!
Now that we've reached conclusion, let us go ot to the next step, shall we?
I would like native speakers to put together a comprehensive list of when to use "a lot of/much/many" for both speech and for formal writings. That would really be a great, great help.


----------



## cuchuflete

We do not "do lists" in this forum.  If you have a question about a specific usage, please ask it here if it is pertinent to the topic of this thread, or open another thread if it is not.


----------



## gaer

LV4-26 said:


> Conclusion : the statement that _a lot of/lots of_ sounds more natural in speech is true, except when it is counterbalanced by other contextual parameters (in your case, Gaer, it is not). Which is a handy way out that doesn't explain anything.


I agree with most everything you said. Register is a factor, but rhythm or cadence must be a factor too.

One other thing that has not been mentioned: typing!

I would probably have SAID this:

I agree with almost everything you said. Register is a factor, but rhythm or cadence has to be a factor too.

My choice of words when I type is at least partially due to speed.

"A lot of" takes a lot more time to type than "many"!

Possible? 

Gaer


----------



## cheshire

That is one good parameter that is worth mentioning when discussing this issue.


----------



## LV4-26

gaer said:


> "A lot of" takes a lot more time to type than "many"!
> Possible?


That's right. Twice as a lot of many signs! 
Let's just hope novelists don't base their choice of words on this criterium.


----------



## gaer

LV4-26 said:


> That's right. Twice as a lot of many signs!
> Let's just hope novelists don't base their choice of words on this criterium.


But isn't it interesting that spoken language tends to contain extra words while written language tends to contain less—ahem—fewer words? 

So, what is more natural in formal writing, many (a lot of) words or brevity? 

Gaer


----------



## cheshire

> But isn't it interesting that spoken language tends to contain extra words while written language tends to contain less—ahem—fewer?


Interesting indeed, but quite understandable.
For example, Chinese avoid one letter (or one syllabic) words, because short words have a higher risk of being misheard. Too short words and words containing repetitious phonemes are universally avoided. (The latter is from other reasons: it has the risk of sounding similar to stammering.)


----------

