- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by NordlysI would hold that if it sounds good and conveys the correct meaning then hang the grammer. (thats ok i love posting them :-) )
It depends. If the intended meaning is completely boring, the third is least important. (I love to reply to rhetorical questions.)
Putting the "ing" form of a verb after a form of the verb "to be" makes the tense progressive--it highlights the ongoing, continuous nature of the action.
"I was sitting" is past progressive. "I am sitting" is present progressive. "I have been sitting" is present perfect progressive. All of these forms must use the "ing."
You can't say "I was sat in the bar" for the same reason that you can't say "I am sit in the bar"-- the progressive form requires the "ing" ending.
IMO Bowmann's and Kirksey's "corrections" are not accurate. They refer to style, not grammar. "I was sitting in the bar drinking a beer" seems grammatically fine.
Originally posted by Daemon SinActually, as grammar mistakes go "I was sat" is a pretty big one--certainly not negligible.
The problem with the first sentence is that it contains a negligible grammar mistake that attracts moronic, lonely, desperate grammar Nazi's that have nothing else better to do than laze about online making pedantic comments while they're waiting for their cheap porn to download.
I'm strongly against hypercorrection of pedantic grammar "errors" (especially ones that are in use in common speech all the time, like split infinitives), but "I was sat" is an error that very very few native English speakers would make, and hence is definitely worth correcting.
Originally posted by jgvaccarothank you.
Actually, as grammar mistakes go "I was sat" is a pretty big one--certainly not negligible.
I'm strongly against hypercorrection of pedantic grammar "errors" (especially ones that are in use in common speech all the time, like split infinitives), but "I was sat" is an error that very very few native English speakers would make, and hence is definitely worth correcting.
Actually many native speakers of English say "I was sat: because the meaning is clear; confusion with the idea that someone put me there would not arise as it would be made clear- I was sat in the corner by the teacher as I had been having sex with my pet camel at break.
Did someone post that you can't say "I was jumped" as in I was jumped by three mugggers?
Active and passive voice- but there's a whole new thread in that.
Originally posted by Daemon SinIt's all right. I've got it now.
The problem with the first sentence is that it contains a negligible grammar mistake that attracts moronic, lonely, desperate grammar Nazi's that have nothing else better to do than laze about online making pedantic comments while they're waiting for their cheap porn to download.
Originally posted by Forest9Perhaps in the UK -- context defines what's *normal.* I'm not sure who defines what's grammatically correct, but I've never heard anyone say *I was sat....*
Actually many native speakers of English say "I was sat: because the meaning is clear; confusion with the idea that someone put me there would not arise as it would be made clear- I was sat in the corner by the teacher as I had been having sex with my pet camel at break.
Did someone post that you can't say "I was jumped" as in I was jumped by three mugggers?
Active and passive voice- but there's a whole new thread in that.
If it is in common usage it is by defacto correct. If you can get enough people to say something grammar doesn't matter. If everyone at RHP started using "I was sat" and when corrected by their friends said that they knew ten thousand other people who did the same thing we may be able to influence what other people think is correct. It is worth trying just as an experiment.
Originally posted by reader1107Nor have I-- it appears be a British dialect usage. Entering "I was sat" into google gets a lot of hits, and they all seem to be from the UK. A little more research seems to indicate that it was originally a Northern English regional usage. (for example: http://www.englishforums.com/English/SatOrSitting/bkbnw/Post.htm)
Perhaps in the UK -- context defines what's *normal.* I'm not sure who defines what's grammatically correct, but I've never heard anyone say *I was sat....*
So it's kind of like how Pittsburghers (and perhaps others) say "this car needs washed" instead of "this car needs to be washed." Indefensible with respect to standard English, but very prevalent regionally, and once you hear it enough it starts to sound normal.
Nothing wrong with these regional variants-- in fact they add spice to the language--but it's good to keep in mind that they are deviations from the standard and will sound strange or wrong to many.
Originally posted by jgvaccaroEre, I'm living in a Northern region of England and although they don't all talk proper, I baint 'eard 'em say, "I was sat" anywhere.
...it appears be a British dialect usage.... A little more research seems to indicate that it was originally a Northern English regional usage.
Apart from some of the yokels round here who say, " Ah wor sa' int' pub".