Pedants' Paradise

[Rue Dubac]

Many thanks, Pabmusic, particularly for the charming and delightful derivation of "cockroach", which I had never come across. I take your point about "rack" and "wrack", though I cannot understand why people always choose the seaweed. Perhaps they know that the one without the w goes in an oven or wherever, so think the other must be spelt differently? I do wish they would use a dictionary before going into print.
Another annoyance is often caused by those who seem to confuse grammar/syntax with style. It may have been mentioned here before - or again too commonplace - but I am tired of being told that a split infinitive or ending a sentence with a preposition are grammatical errors. They may be infelicitous in style, but neither is ungrammatical in itself. (The rest of the sentence may be...)

[Rue Dubac]

Yes, "lay" and "lie" confusion do annoy. The Will Self example could perhaps be an over-correction by an enthusiastic young editor? (Being kind - do they even exist?)
And, what has become of the verb "to sit"? Why do we constantly hear, from those who should know better, "She was sat..." - by whom? - instead of "She was sitting/seated..."? "Appeal" and "protest" also seem now to have become transitive; people are always appealing a decision, though they do sometimes appeal for support. Prepositions are dropping out all over the place.

[jean]

Why do we constantly hear, from those who should know better, "She was sat..." - by whom? - instead of "She was sitting/seated..."?

Because that's a common non-standard variant, largely regional in origin, though becoming more widespread. Similarly she was stood...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Because that's a common non-standard variant, largely regional in origin, though becoming more widespread. Similarly she was stood...

No. It's because people don't understand grammar.

[jean]

Even if your particular prescriptivist grammar won't incorporate this usage, it is still (as I said) a common non-standard variant, largely regional in origin.

So your No means what, exactly?

[french frank]

No. It's because people don't understand grammar.

I suspect there are very well educated people nowadays who 'don't understand grammar', if one is referring to English grammar prior to rules drawn up by the Victorians to satisfy their concept of 'correctness'. The idea that 'correct grammar' and 'the English language' both came into being simultaneously c. 450CE seems dubious.

[jean]

I think the distinction between active and passive was more fluid in the past, before those Victorians tried to pin it down.

A usage which hasn't spread this side of the border and so does not cause consternation on this thread is the Scots it wants done - though it is found in some varieties of American English. This article recognises its probable Scots origns.

And don't forget Jane Austen's While the boxes were unpacking - continuous forms of the passive were very late arrivals on the grammatical scene.

[gurnemanz]

No. It's because people don't understand grammar.

Not necessarily to do with not understanding grammar. A good friend of mine from the north of England was a German teacher at the same school as me in the south of England for about 20 years. I hope we could both be regarded as educated and literate. Teaching grammar was our job. He would always say, "I was sat.." and I do not think he would have regarded this usage as "non-standard". Being in daily immediate contact with him, I would even find myself saying it myself. All new usage starts out as a mutation, i.e. being regarded by traditionalists as "wrong". There was a time when "I was sitting .. " did not exist as a verb form in English. It was certainly not used by Chaucer and is not much in evidence in Shakespeare or the King James Bible, when it was just coming in. Languages evolve and develop.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Not necessarily to do with not understanding grammar. A good friend of mine from the north of England was a German teacher at the same school as me in the south of England for about 20 years. I hope we could both be regarded as educated and literate. Teaching grammar was our job. He would always say, "I was sat.." and I do not think he would have regarded this usage as "non-standard". Being in daily immediate contact with him, I would even find myself saying it myself. All new usage starts out as a mutation, i.e. being regarded by traditionalists as "wrong". There was a time when "I was sitting .. " did not exist as a verb form in English. It was certainly not used by Chaucer and is not much in evidence in Shakespeare or the King James Bible, when it was just coming in. Languages evolve and develop.

"I was sat" means someone else placed you on the seat. The error is compounded when someone says "I am sat/stood".

[vinteuil]

"I was sat" means someone else placed you on the seat.

No it doesn't. It is another way of saying "I was seated" or "I was sitting", often used by many native speakers of English.

What do you mean by "means"?



I suspect you mean - "I think "I was sat" ought to mean 'someone else placed you on the seat'. "




.

[gurnemanz]

"I was sat" means someone else placed you on the seat. The error is compounded when someone says "I am sat/stood".

I do know exactly what you mean but I'm trying to remain open-minded and avoid being dogmatic on such usage despite what my personal preference and instincts for "correctness" may tell me.

I can even detect a slight nuance of difference in meaning in expressions like: He was bent over in agony. (What position was he permanently in?). versus: He was bending over to tie his shoelace (What was he doing at that moment?). "He was sat on the chair" leans more towards his being firmly in that position all the time, whereas: "He was sitting on the chair" might be used to imply: He was just in the process of performing that action as I looked at him.

[jean]

...It is another way of saying "I was seated" or "I was sitting"...

I was just about give the example I was seated, which I assume would satisfy the most pedantic - but it isn't usually used to mean somebody put me there.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No it doesn't. It is another way of saying "I was seated" or "I was sitting", often used by many native speakers of English.

What do you mean by "means"?



I suspect you mean - "I think "I was sat" ought to mean 'someone else placed you on the seat'. "




.

If it"s OK to disregard the misuse of the past/present continuous tense for two common verbs, why not do the same for other verbs. Currently Frau A is ate a cake.

[vinteuil]

If it"s OK to disregard the misuse of the past/present continuous tense for two common verbs, why not do the same for other verbs. Currently Frau A is ate a cake.

... "misuse" is your word.

I think you will find many native English speakers "use" the form you abhor.

It is native English speakers' usage that determines English grammar.

You may choose to dislike a particular style. I don't recognise your authority to say that others' usage is "misuse".


And do you find the use of the vulgar Americanism "OK" acceptable?

[jean]

If it"s OK to disregard the misuse of the past/present continuous tense for two common verbs, why not do the same for other verbs. Currently Frau A is ate a cake.

If native speakers begin to make regular use of this form, then the grammar will have to account for it. They are not using it much yet, if at all.

(If whoever is talking about Frau A happens to be German as I think you suggest, then their usage doesn't count I'm afraid. Undemocratic, but there it is.)

But as I've pointed out already (it would be nice if took into consideration my carefully-crafted posts when replying):

I think the distinction between active and passive was more fluid in the past, before those Victorians tried to pin it down.

A usage which hasn't spread this side of the border and so does not cause consternation on this thread is the Scots it wants done - though it is found in some varieties of American English. This article recognises its probable Scots origns.

And don't forget Jane Austen's While the boxes were unpacking - continuous forms of the passive were very late arrivals on the grammatical scene.

Would you call Jane Austen's present continuous there a misuse?