why don't british author's use the words sitting or standing? they will use sat or stood instead. for example, in the usa we would say he is sitting in the kitchen whereas the british would say he is sat in the kitchen. and the british would say he is stood in the kitchen. if i did that in school, my teachers would have had a fit. i guess it is just the difference between british and american english. just curious as to why.
why don't british authors use words
A word from our sponsor:
Comments
I've asked around as well,
I've asked around as well, and it seems like nobody can give a clear answer.
It's certainly not across all british authors. Most British authors use the same forms of sit, stand, stood, sitting, standing as US/Canadian authors do. I suspect it's either an educational or dialectical difference.
"He was sat...." shows up in stories, where most would say "he was sitting".
What happens is that the authors that write in that style are often using word choices that others would only use for objects. "He was stood". I mean, I stood up a lamp yesterday, and I've had girls that stood me up, but most of the time, I see people that were standing :)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Not all of anyone
...it’s not just the British, and not just those from certain regions. English is a cosmopolitan language, with very many speakers all over the world, and we English speakers tend to borrow words and phrases quite promiscuously. It’s all part of the Zeitgeist, as it were.
The key point, I think, is that the participle implies a certain ongoing activity: He was sitting...
The alternative: He was sat...
has a certain stolidity to it that might seem pleasing in certain situations for certain speakers.
In fact, the choice between the participle and some other treatment of the verb depends fairly often on how one thinks about whatever’s going on.
Most of us would have no trouble at all with: “Whew! I’m done in!” or even “I’m done!” yet the same general problems arise when one analyses the actual usage, since there’s no one actually doing anything; it’s just an idiom that means (roughly) “I’m exhausted.” Then again, there’s yet another meaning of “sit” which complicates the “situation” (if you’ll pardon the slight bon mot) by idiomatically referring to “taking an examination,” in which case one might reasonably tell someone that the Bar Exam is sat on the first of July.
In fact, if one looks up the word in the OED, “he was sat” is described as “Now dialectical,” from which one might reasonably infer that it was once entirely “Standard English,” and not limited to the regions nearer the North Pole.
The situation is also complicated by the fact that there are two potential verbs involved, both “to sit” and “to seat,” and it’s not terribly clear which is actually meant when one says, “He was sat in a corner,” since one is active whilst the other is passive.
My own personal inclination is to let people talk for themselves, and whatever a character means to say is perfectly reasonable, for that particular character.
Of course, that’s just me, and where I’m at.
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Re: why don't british authors use words
Greetings
The way words are used around the world has changed over the years. Which has resulted in different standard useage in various countries. If you look at the installation of MS Word you will see many options for English useage, e.g. Canadian, Australian, USA, UK, etc.
I am sure if you look around different areas within USA you will find some words are used differently. Words in England, Wales and Scotland can be used in different ways and that is only a few hundred miles apart.
Eh?
None of that reflects anything I have read. The verb participle is 'standing', and I would write 'he was standing'. Do you have examples of what these "author's" have written. I have looked at a lot of British authors, and don't recognise what you are saying EXCEPT when it is reported speech.
certainly!
Here's a nice selection, just found from the first page of Google.
Chapter 4 of "Cruisin' " by armoire.
"Ride on 67", by cyclist.
"Captain oh my Captain" by Gwen Brown
"A Friend In Need", part 16, by Christina H.
"Scarlet" part 5 by Jessica Drew
"To Make A Wish" part 20
"Ghost of a Chance" part 8 - Sara UK
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
But none of those...
None of those show the examples you used in the original blog. "He was sitting," is common usage but "He is sat," is not a British term I've ever heard of. Instead we would say, "He sat," or "he is sitting."
Look again. the original
Look again. the original poster used 'he is', but in actuality, the posters use 'he was sat' and 'he was stood'.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Ta
I have been away and only had access to a tablet, and I hate typing on that one. Others have said several things I agree with, but I should say that most of the examples given above, including my own, are of a kind. There is a main action, and a description of a secondary one. In mine, the subject (Dennis Armstrong, from memory) is actively waiting for tea. He is inactively sitting upright in bed. The phrase 'he was sat up' is, in effect, adjectival. There is in other cases the difference between someone being the object or passive subject of a transitive verb, and the subject of an active intransitive one.
'He was sat on...' can be the past tense of a transitive use of 'sit' in which it equates to 'they had sat him on...' and is absolutely correct, grammatically. In the case of my own quote used by yourself, I used that construction for adjectival purposes. I also used it because it separated the situational aspect of him sitting in his bed from the active aspect of him waiting for Kirst to deliver her lord and master his tea, and to me it worked better as emphasis and in the flow of words than a bunch of participles.
I did some digging, and came
I did some digging, and came up with some sites. (I'm not going to detail all of them)
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/18609/is-i-am-sat...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/as...
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/10/continuous-tenses/
It looks as if the only country that actively uses/misuses 'am sat' (was sat, etc) is the UK. (There are some examples of US and other countries using it, but that's less than 12%, from one author's research)
Roughly, it looks as though the origin of the phrase was from OE, and became 'was seated', which means it wasn't used the same way as it's used now. (even in the incorrect form)
The last article is, in some ways, the most useful, because it points out the creation of a badly formed continuous tense by using a past tense with a past participle, rather than a past tense with a present participle. "He was sat", used as an example of waiting, is a continuous action - it didn't happen once, it is continuing (so it should be 'sitting', as the present participle). "I sat the tray on the table" is a completed action. Once I finished putting the tray down, my action is halted. If I am sitting (or standing), awaiting another event (mine or someone else's), then I'm in a continuing action.
Now, if you want to talk about the "He was sat on", it would generally be worded as a threat or caution. "The boss sat him down and had a long talk with him." - in that situation, it's a halted action, because it's done.
If it's a true passive action/tense, then yes, absolutely. It's already been mentioned that if you treat a person as an object, then the construct tends to work fine. (the last article has examples of this, such as "the mirrors were stood on edge" ) (the reference to being put in a chair by a waitress is still awkward, to me. 'seated' would be better than 'sat')
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Lots of good discussion here!
I am stood standing (lol) by my use of the word 'adjectival' to describe my use in the example quoted. As has been observed below, it works for me and fits better with the flow of words than two -ings.
North vs South
I think the difference may be a regional thing. As someone born on the South Coast I would use Sitting and Standing but someone from the industrial north would probably use Sat or Stood. This difference relates to the origins of the dialects we use: the southern ones probably have more French and possibly colonial influences while the northern ones have more words and constructs which have German or Scandinavian roots.
Penny
None of the above
In writing, was sat/stood, would mean someone was carried, forced or at least directed to a place to stand. Was sitting/standing would indicate a continuing action in the past, or in American English could also indicate an habitual action in the past. In speech, dialectal differences lose such nuances.
But all of the above are poor writing in most cases. Unless you have a definite distinction you want emphasized, avoid participial phrases like those. Just say sat/stood and let context carry the fine gradings of meaning.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Duh?
My usage is "he/she was standing/sitting wherever" and describes the participant's location.. "He/She stood/sat in the kitchen" is an act. I can't see where this is a Britishism/Americanism and have never come across this as any kind of language separation.
I know we are supposed to be differentiated by our common language, but I've not come across this one before,
Joanne
is/was
some british authors will use sat/stood after is/was. as in he is sat or he is stood, which is different than he sat or he stood. i believe that penny lane is correct that the ones who do this are from northern england.
Wales
in my case.
Normally...
This would normally be active vs. passive voice. However there are connotations of the act being involuntary in these situations. Such as 'she sat her child down on the sofa' being written as 'the child was sat on the sofa.' Sorry, awkward I know but it was off the top of my head.
~And so it goes...
Come on ladies
cyclist is perfectly correct. Neither is it a North vs South thing. Schools don't differentiate between North and South we were taught to read and write by teachers educated from all parts of the UK who were educated at universities and colleges in various regions.
We may have different dialects and we may have used slang when speaking and I enjoy to listen to conversations and to identify where a person lives.
What I would say is that it is more likely to be associated with age rather than region since now we have text talk and many new words cropping up as well as misuse of the language. Maybe the classes at schools also have far more pupils who moved to UK than ever before so that is another influence.
London has dealt with this problem of influx and integration for many more years than the North of England so that must be a lesser factor than the age theory.
Standards aren't the same now we have so many options for communication. In the North of England we have replaced the slate and chalk with computers, I-pads, I-phones etc so we aren't so much at a disadvantage as Penny says.
I never heard anybody in UK write as suggested. We even spell words correctly.
I wonder if this was a tease to seek reaction.
Ahem.
A. Not a lady, but I understand the sentiment.
B. Did you read my post above where I answered Cyclist's request for examples?
There are hundreds of examples just on here; denial makes them disappear not.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
A reflection from
a U.S. reader/(occasional) writer:
Here, "he was sat" would generally be interpreted to mean "he was made to sit", as in "He was sat down on the stool for a severe tongue-lashing."
Be well,
Deni
Sat or sitting, or stood or
Sat or sitting, or stood or standing. It all means the same. With the rapid changes the English language seems to get yearly, for word meanings, these just might be someone's idea of proper grammar.
I can remember when arriving in the UK in 1953 and attending an English school, how my brothers and sister and I would get in trouble from the teachers for spelling words 'American style'.
Then when we returned back to the U.S.1956, we would again get in trouble from the teachers for spelling words English style.
This was even when I proved the words were spelled correctly via dictionaries. Just couldn't win.
Here is a set of words used in various sections of the American South.
Ya'll (singular), all ya'll (plural).
I have heard this used in portions of Texas and parts of Southern States bordering around Texas or relatively near Texas.
*sigh*
I grew up and live in East Texas. It's y'all when written. It's also considered to be bad grammar, and isn't used unless writing dialogue. Even the people that use it _regularly_ don't call it proper grammar. It's like "ain't" (Am not). It's used and accepted as a dialectical choice, but also considered poor english.
Pick up some Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, or Charles Dickens. Look for "was sat" or "was stood". You won't see either. How about some Wodehouse? Very much a different writing style, and still none of those. Walpole? (Castle of Otranto) - don't recall any there.
In fact, if you go back and read any work I can remember from the "Modern English" period (Shakespeare forward), you'll find that the grammar rules have _not_ particularly changed. Some vocabulary and spelling, but not grammar.
Even Canterbury Tales isn't that different in grammar.
The largest changes in the language shifts between the various types of English is in spelling, or rather, the simplification of the alphabet. (which would be different from spelling, I suppose)
We've also lost a lot of words that were used for specific purposes. Hight, for example, was used in Middle English to mean "was called/named". (a mead-hall, hight Heorot). Even in Modern English, the plural "You/Your" has replaced the singular "Thee/Thou/Thine" (except for certain Mennonite sects)
Anyway - Beowulf - www.heorot.dk/beo-intro-rede.html
Considered to be *hand waving* Old English/Nordic/Anglo-Saxon/Englisc.
www.heorot.dk/beo-intro-rede.html
If you look at the comparison, you'll notice that in general, the word layout structure (grammar) is pretty close to what we use now. Just with a lot more specialized letters. (and really strange looking words to modern eyes)
I have a copy of Canterbury Tales, and I enjoy reading it in ME. It's more fun - and raunchy.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
He or she
was seated is correct grammatically but not many writers seem to use it nowadays. More likely to be, he was stood standing at the bar, but then literacy standards, like most other standards, have declined in the past fifty years as education theory becomes more and more flaky and rules and boundaries go out the window in favour of free expression.
As the original blogger has expressed an exasperation with British writing, perhaps they could explain why US writers over use the preposition of, as in he fell off of a log, whereas in British English, it would be, he fell off a log.
Angharad
I couldn't say why the extra
I couldn't say why the extra of is used. I don't believe I've used it, but I could be wrong.
The waiter made sure that Ken sat down and was seated at the table. After sitting for some time, he arose, then walked to the bar. As he stood there in thought, he was unaware that he was standing next to a lamp full of fleas, stood there by a particularly prankish individual.
(I don't believe he could be stood standing. He could be standing, stood there, perhaps)
I believe the original poster was like me - trying to identify why some British authors use sit/sat/stood/standing in the way that they do. Even cyclist is apparently unaware that he/she wrote in that way in the past.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Why do British authors use words
it's because it's depends on the context
I stand is the present tense
I stood is the past tense
I am standing waiting is correct as standing is present tense
I am stood waiting is incorrect as stood is past tense
I was stood waiting however is also incorrect as the continuous past tense is I was standing waiting
Likewise for sat it's
present tense. sit / sitting
past tense. sat
continuous present. I am sitting
continuous past. I was sitting
However the flexibility of the English language means a phrase like
"the cat was sat, sitting on a mat, looking at the dog that was standing on the otherside of the glass, and which was stood in a puddle with its tail wagging vigorously"
can be simplified easily to
"the cat sat on a mat looking at the dog, stood in a puddle on the otherside of the glass, with its tail wagging vigorously"
so neither is wrong it's just one is more right than the other
for more info you could look at
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/10/continuous-tenses/
hugs
Brit
ps thanks for all the stories
question.
So, then, wouldn't it be
"the cat sat on a mat, looking at the dog standing in a puddle on the other side of the glass, with its tail wagging vigorously"
As in this case, the dog is participating in two continuous actions - standing and wagging? (I moved commas; it might not help.)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
yep
yep
my transposition got the comma in the wrong place
it's not easy doing these posts via smartphone when I should be snoring lol
I'm glad you got the priorities right
the cat was sitting on the mat while the mutt stood in a puddle, drooling and wagging its tail.
Cats Rule!
Angharad
Boring
How many of us actually care whether there are present or past participles in "sit" or "sat"? Surely the reality is if it fits in the story, and, if it does, then it's all right.
Hey! We're all amateurs here, inasmuch as we don't get paid to do this. You want to read what we write, then OK. If you don't want to read what we write, that's OK too.
If you want to go professional then you are supposed to have professional editors....and let me say I have seen egregious errors by so-called professionals.
By and large BC writers are pretty good, and you are reading all this for free. Stop Whingeing!
Joanne
What whining is going on here
What whining is going on here? Other than constant complaints by one poster about other posters, it seems like it's mostly been a good discussion over grammar structures, regionalisms, and writing styles.
Frankly, I don't see why anyone would want to contribute to this thread unless they have a personal interest in language or writing, and at least one complainant appears to have neither.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
In the larger sense, and from an author's viewpoint...
There’s no such thing as "incorrect," but only "inappropriate."
An author telling a story might be faulted for failure to make a character’s speech believable, but it’s not the business of an author to either correct or bowdlerise the spoken words or thoughts of his or her characters.
In fact, far too many authors make their characters all speak with the same voice, a pedantic version of ‘Received English’ (whatever the source) and have to resort to verbal ‘tics’ to differentiate speakers at all.
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
I believe the difference is
I believe the difference is between the story, and the dialogue. Dialogue is intended to be personalized; you have to have different people sound as if they _were_ different. The story, or narration, should be as correct as possible without being stilted.
So, if you want to have a character say "Tawk lahk ah man, an quit soundin' lahk ah stuck up Yankee", go for it. However, if you have the narrator say it, it should be "He told the intruder to speak more clearly." (or something similar).
Thoughts are done much like the dialogue, but with better spelling. There's really not much of a drawl when people think :)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Drawl
I don't know about thinking, but in the mesmerisingly dreadful set of cameos that is the film "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (which I do actually enjoy watching), the late Jaaaahn Waaaaayne makes an appearance right at the end. He says his line, "Surely that man was the son of god!" and on the first take the director asks him "John, can you say that line with more awe?"
He nods, and tries again. "Aaaaaaaw, surely that man was the son of god!"
John Wayne
was such a ham in most of his films. I loved the way Jimmy Shtewart used to injerject, 'Waaal, before he started his lines.
Angharad
John Wayne's sexuality
Apparently, he WAS the Marion kind.
I have my coat and the horse I rode in on is waiting.
Thanks a lot. Now I have the
Thanks a lot. Now I have the song "Entering Marion" stuck in my head.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
You are welcome
I am now replaying his climactic lines in 'True Grit' in a new way.
"Fill your hand, you son of a..."
I suppose he was, indeed, a man's man!
(None of this is intended to suggest anything about the man; it's just fun to play with words, as ever)
It is a great big world
And America is not the one with the big dick any more. I personally think that all these different ways of expressing our selves is quite charming. Americans are pretty much hated where ever we go any more. Maybe the UK or Spanish or Saudi or Peruvian way of speaking is funner.