didn't do a lot of things

[navi]

Can one use:
1-I didn't do a lot of things.
to mean:
a-I left a lot of things undone.

In a, the possiblity that I did do a lot of things (and left a lot of other things undone does exist) while in a sentence like
2-'I didn't do much.'
such a possibility doesn't exist.

In other words, can 1 both mean a and 2?

[Mister Micawber]

.
I'm not sure I follow you, navi, but yes, 1 can mean both a and 2. 2 would more normally be rephrased as 'I didn't do a lot', though.
.
_________________
Canadian-American native speaker
who teaches English for a living at Mister Micawber's
ESL cafe: Interview with Mister Micawber

[navi]

Thanks Mr. Micawber,
I think you have answered the question and there seems to be no problem as far as your reply is concerned.
I guess the problem was that my question wasn't formulated very clearly.

One more question here:
Could:
'I didn't do a lot'
carry the same ambiguity?
Could it ever mean: 'There were a lot of things I left undone'

It seems to me that it cannot. Ti me it would always mean the same as 'I didn't do much'. But imagine this conversation:

-We went to Paris and spent a week there. We saw a lot of things, but we didn't see the Pompidou Center.
-It wasn't just that. We didn't see A LOT.
(Can't this mean: 'There were a lot of things we didn't see although there were a lot we did see?)

[Conchita]

'We didn't see a lot' is mainly used to mean 'We saw only a few things'.