If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I get annoyed with the mis-use of 'sat'. Am I correct in thinking 'He was sat next to me' is grammatical incorrect and should be either 'He sat next to me' or 'He was sitting next to me'?
Absolutely right. 'Sat' is the simple past tense (he sat at the table) or past participle (he was sat upon by the elephant). The past imperfect tense is 'he was sitting (or seated)'. The use you object to (me too) is very common though and may one day acquire the force of ... idiom.
I get annoyed with the mis-use of 'sat'. Am I correct in thinking 'He was sat next to me' is grammatical incorrect and should be either 'He sat next to me' or 'He was sitting next to me'?
Not a thing for me to get annoyed about any more, as I once used to. I am not aware that I use it but I might. In my experience, it is quite standard with many educated speakers especially from the North of England. I can think of a particular fellow language teacher from Cheshire who used it all the time. E.g something like: "This boy was sat there not paying attention".
I agree that on the surface it appears ungrammatical but there is a subtle difference between this past participle usage and the more standard present continuous when used with verbs of position.
When the police came in, the murderer was kneeling over the corpse. (Pres continuous: What was he doing at that moment?)
When the police came in, the murderer was knelt over the corpse. (What position was he in?)
I get annoyed with the mis-use of 'sat'. Am I correct in thinking 'He was sat next to me' is grammatical incorrect and should be either 'He sat next to me' or 'He was sitting next to me'?
I'm quite happy with the original in colloquial and dialect usage
I agree that on the surface it appears ungrammatical but there is a subtle difference between this past participle usage and the more standard present continuous when used with verbs of position.
When the police came in, the murderer was kneeling over the corpse. (Pres continuous: What was he doing at that moment?)
When the police came in, the murderer was knelt over the corpse. (What position was he in?)
... but here in the "sat" case the distinction wd be between -
He was sitting.
He was seated. (Rather than "He was sat." )
I have to say that, like you, the use of "he was sat" doesn't offend me overmuch...
This is all most interesting. There is also the archaic spelling of "sat", "sate".
Similarly to "sat/sitting", a few months ago I had this email exchange with a Radio 4 news programme. Names have been removed to protect the guilty.
(A reporter) told us three times in a short report this evening that she was "stood" under a mountain.
Would someone please tell her that this is incorrect English?
Thank you,
mangerton
Within thirty minutes I received this reply from the programme's editor:
I completely agree and have already pointed this out to her!
In my experience, it is quite standard with many educated speakers especially from the North of England.
It's been common in the NW for a very long time (though not, oddly, in Liverpool).
What's interesting is that it has recently become much more common over a wider area. I think it's time to recognise that it's already become an idiom.
(I hope that presenter pays no attention to the programme editor!)
Well, of course ... the Scots have so much more to be proudful and prideful about ...
Remember that prideful comes before a fallful
(Interesting - I'm using Firefox as a web browser, & it checks the spelling when I type. Being American, it doesn't like me using 's' instead of 'z' in certain words. It doesn't like 'proudful', but likes 'prideful', which suggests that the use of the latter is common enough in the USA to be included in a spellchecker, but the former isn't)
It's been common in the NW for a very long time (though not, oddly, in Liverpool).
What's interesting is that it has recently become much more common over a wider area. I think it's time to recognise that it's already become an idiom.
(I hope that presenter pays no attention to the programme editor!)
I think it's time to recognise that it's already become an idiom - more's the pity.
I hope that presenter pays no attention to the programme editor! - Yes, great - let's dumb down the grammar as well as programme content.
I think it's time to recognise that it's already become an idiom - more's the pity.
I hope that presenter pays no attention to the programme editor! - Yes, great - let's dumb down the grammar as well as programme content.
Exactly. I have no objection to idiomatic English, but I don't think a news programme on R4 is the place for it.
In Scotland, I seen, I done, and I have went are now so common that one might consider that they too have become idiomatic. Should they too become common currency on formal radio?
Disclaimer: That is of course only my opinion. Other opinions may vary, and must of course be respected too.
Comment