The amount of people who use amount incorrectly gets my goat. It is the NUMBER of people. Amount refers to quantity.
2006-12-21 11:59:27 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
Why start now
2006-12-21 12:05:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
What's the problem with people getting your goat? There can be an amount of goats, a quantity of goats, and a number of goats. Since goats are living things, and generaly what applies to living things can be applied to humans, since we are generaly living, except the large amount who are dead, amount should be able to apply to people, humans, or whatever else you want to call us funny beings who play with tons of electrons all day. Or is it a large amount of electrons...?
Oh, yeah, and you should get a life, maybe teach some people your interesting logic, questioning, and word usage skills and knowledge. But then again, you could amount to something, and be a normal human being, if normal is even possible.
Ok, I'm done now.
2006-12-21 12:11:56 · answer #2 · answered by Weston 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Doesn`t a number of people amount to a quantity?
2006-12-21 12:03:15 · answer #3 · answered by The BudMiester 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I am with EarthCalling and cliffordex - I am particularly irritated by journalists of 'quality' newspapers who repeatedly offend by using these words inappropriately. No doubt the aforementioned Yusers will also have noted the insidious advance in the use oif the word 'of' for 'have,' as in 'I should of gone when the fighting began'; this, in my opinion, tops the lot for irritation value.
2006-12-21 13:33:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are right. Those little things bug me too. Another similar one is when 'less' is used instead of 'fewer'. There were less people in the room, should be 'fewer' people. Maybe I should get a life too. But I love nit-picking over the finer points of grammar.
2006-12-21 13:15:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't worry about it, personally. Language never has and never will be a static thing (until it dies). It is fluid and changing, so your definitions reflect a snapshot in time. I use amount to describe size and do not consider myself a terrible person.
2006-12-21 12:12:33 · answer #6 · answered by Mark P 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
So there can't be a quantity of people?
2006-12-21 12:00:42 · answer #7 · answered by gottabuylots 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Language has many usage problems, which is why I always keep my usage dictionary handy. You shouldn't fret on it too much though, you will run out of goats.
2006-12-21 12:08:38 · answer #8 · answered by ♫ giD∑■η ♫ 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not necessarily. You have as much right to voice an opinion on this site as anyone else.
2006-12-21 12:07:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
a simple one.... Check Spelling
hope you have a Spelling Merry Christmas!
2006-12-21 12:02:49 · answer #10 · answered by fluxpattern® 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's not the only definition. Someone can also "amount to nothing." which means they are worthless.
2006-12-21 12:41:22 · answer #11 · answered by art_tchr_phx 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋