My general annoyance at the use of 'bunch'

[cito]

I don't really understand this mentality given that language is a fluid thing that changes, which is something we are all aware of. And vernacular is vernacular for a reason, as the "mediocrity" of spoken language seems to be the lament every generation has of the next.

The difference is that I've never really seen or heard: 'tons, heaps, loads, and piles' being used for practically every reference to nouns. Not even in vernacular speech.

The 'language is a fluid thing that changes' rejoinder is exactly what I was referring to with those attempts to explain away everything as 'change' or 'normal evolution'. I'm talking about mediocre language use.

I'm curious: what makes it mediocre? Why this change and not others? What is the least mediocre, or perfect use? Who gets to choose?

[Le Baron]

I'm curious: what makes it mediocre? Why this change and not others? What is the least mediocre, or perfect use? Who gets to choose?

You're asking me the wrong question. I'm not saying this word is necessarily structurally any different (though against some it is), but that other words haven't been employed with the same blanket frequency. It just happens that this word is that word!

[garyb]

And where does this line of thinking lead us to? If we take "a lot of," or "lots of," we return to the same issue that "a bunch of" has; this also applies to tons, heaps, loads, and piles.

A few years ago we actually had a poster complaining about the use of "a lot" to mean "many". Needless to say, they weren't taken very seriously.

[Le Baron]

A few years ago we actually had a poster complaining about the use of "a lot" to mean "many". Needless to say, they weren't taken very seriously.

At least it wasn't 'alot'.

[cito]

A few years ago we actually had a poster complaining about the use of "a lot" to mean "many". Needless to say, they weren't taken very seriously.

At least it wasn't 'alot'.

We can certainly both agree "alot" is a linguistic crime!!

[cito]

I'm curious: what makes it mediocre? Why this change and not others? What is the least mediocre, or perfect use? Who gets to choose?

You're asking me the wrong question. I'm not saying this word is necessarily structurally any different (though against some it is), but that other words haven't been employed with the same blanket frequency. It just happens that this word is that word!

Fair enough!