Question about grammar style

2 Mar 2014

I was wondering if it was me or is there a style of writing in English(UK) type stories. I keep seeing I was sat, or we were sat, instead of sitting. Is this normal grammar for Brits? I am not trying to be a wise ass. Just curious, as it shows up a lot on here.

2 Mar 2014

Quote by real69luvr
I was wondering if it was me or is there a style of writing in English(UK) type stories. I keep seeing I was sat, or we were sat, instead of sitting. Is this normal grammar for Brits? I am not trying to be a wise ass. Just curious, as it shows up a lot on here.

Both are correct, one is the imperfect tense and the other is the pluperfect although I would say were seated rather than were sat. Maybe Brits vary the language more, I'm not sure. There are usually clues but they tend to be phrases or words that are common over here and of course the spelling of some words differ.
There is one author here who's asked if she's British and I can understand why, her turn of phrase seems very British.

2 Mar 2014

Thanks. Its not that bad, but it just jumps out at me. I am sure I make my share of mistakes, but these are not mistakes I guess just not what this ole country red neck is used to. I love all the stories here though. Very entertaining.

2 Mar 2014

Can you provide any references to where you've seen this on the site? I don't know of any usage that would work like that. Maybe the examples are from the same author and he/she is just getting it wrong? There are certainly spelling, usage, and some mechanical differences between American English and British English, but I don't know of any differences like that which would go into the usage of a verb, in straight verb form, as a noun/predicate nominative (unless it is a slang or colloquial or very geographically localized idiom, or a character speaking in a very idiomatic way).

It's really just a matter that 'to be' is a linking verb (here linking 'I' to 'sat' or 'we' to 'sat'). A linking verb links the subject/noun (here 'I' or 'we') to a predicate nominative (and a predicate nominative is a noun that renames or describes the sentence's subject). So a gerund like 'sitting' can function in that noun capacity. But another verb like 'sat' can't.

So, again, unless this is some highly localized idiom used in some corner of Wales or Scotland, then the usage is just wrong.

3 Mar 2014

Quote by bethalia
Can you provide any references to where you've seen this on the site? I don't know of any usage that would work like that. Maybe the examples are from the same author and he/she is just getting it wrong? There are certainly spelling, usage, and some mechanical differences between American English and British English, but I don't know of any differences like that which would go into the usage of a verb, in straight verb form, as a noun/predicate nominative (unless it is a slang or colloquial or very geographically localized idiom, or a character speaking in a very idiomatic way).

It's really just a matter that 'to be' is a linking verb (here linking 'I' to 'sat' or 'we' to 'sat'). A linking verb links the subject/noun (here 'I' or 'we') to a predicate nominative (and a predicate nominative is a noun that renames or describes the sentence's subject). So a gerund like 'sitting' can function in that noun capacity. But another verb like 'sat' can't.

So, again, unless this is some highly localized idiom used in some corner of Wales or Scotland, then the usage is just wrong.

British English? Is that what they call it over there?
We call it English, you know, from England, lol. We might even say the Queens' English but I've never heard of British English, I love that.

3 Mar 2014

The next story I read I will bring it to your attention. I have seen it a lot so I am sure it won't be long.

3 Mar 2014

Quote by dpw

British English? Is that what they call it over there?
We call it English, you know, from England, lol. We might even say the Queens' English but I've never heard of British English, I love that.

Just a way to distinguish between two slightly different and unique ways of doing the same thing. I suppose another way to do it would be you guys could have The Queen's English on your side of the pond and we could have The President's English on our side! (although I think the concept of The Queen's English has a lot more style and panache and doesn't cause one from time to time to winch in embarrassment. I mean, sure, 'The President's English' is fine as long as the president being referred to is Obama or Clinton. But, good God, George W. Bush's English!!!)

3 Mar 2014

hhahahahahaahah OMG noooooooo

3 Mar 2014

Quote by real69luvr
hhahahahahaahah OMG noooooooo

Yup, I thought the same. Anyway thinking about it were sat is wrong. Were is used for the imperfect or continuous past and takes an ing ending, that's the gerund. So you sat and continued to sit, you were sitting. Sat is used in the past as in we sat which is the action or the pluperfect with had as in we had sat, sort of the older past.

3 Mar 2014

In the example you use "I was sat..." I can pretty much guarantee that a gerund or the past-participle of another verb is going to turn up pretty quickly, probably the next word - and it's more than likely going to be the most important verb of the sentence. In this case it's going to be something like - thinking, looking, discussing, wanking. For me "We were sat discussing... " is far more elegant than "We were sitting discussing..."

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber

3 Mar 2014

Quote by overmykneenow
In the example you use "I was sat..." I can pretty much guarantee that a gerund or the past-participle of another verb is going to turn up pretty quickly, probably the next word - and it's more than likely going to be the most important verb of the sentence. In this case it's going to be something like - thinking, looking, discussing, wanking. For me "We were sat discussing... " is far more elegant than "We were sitting discussing..."

I think its what you are used to. Here in the states, you would pretty much never say "we were sat." in fact we would probably get marks off in class for writing it thus. Additionally, I find it sounds clunky. I much prefer "we were sitting."

3 Mar 2014

Quote by dpw

British English? Is that what they call it over there?
We call it English, you know, from England, lol. We might even say the Queens' English but I've never heard of British English, I love that.

I know that this distinction is commonly used all over the world to make it easier for English students to understand the differences between the way words are spelled in the UK and the US. It also makes it easier to keep words like lift and elevator straight. That's not an American thing. Very helpful when you start out.

But back to the topic on hand. As far as I know was "I was sat" a very common expression in some parts of the UK. In the last decade or so it got accepted by the broad public. I even noticed that expression while watching the BBC. Not an linguistics expert though.

3 Mar 2014

Quote by Dreamer90

I know that this distinction is commonly used all over the world to make it easier for English students to understand the differences between the way words are spelled in the UK and the US. It also makes it easier to keep words like lift and elevator straight. That's not an American thing. Very helpful when you start out.

But back to the topic on hand. As far as I know was "I was sat" a very common expression in some parts of the UK. In the last decade or so it got accepted by the broad public. I even noticed that expression while watching the BBC. Not an linguistics expert though.

It's a new one for me, which is why I was asking the OP for a reference. It would be nice to see it in context. All kinds of weird things come down the pike from time to time. That's why I was thinking it is perhaps a recent colloquialism, rather than something that is accepted in the mainstream for serious writing. In that regard it's similar to the relatively recent advent of 'alright' as a substitute for 'all right.'