Potentially, once again, an example of two peoples separated by a common language

[thismaz]

I've been caught in the past, when ranting about grammar. I've been informed that what I saw as an irritating construction that knocked me out of a story, is actually a perfectly valid construction elsewhere.

So, I'm once again asking, instead of complaining.

Does this read as a valid sentence construction to you?

---- He could imagine a place where he and X were stood, side by side.

or this one -

--- They were sat on the floor.

or this -

--- The stone had sank in the water



Right *looks at clock* I'd better get off to work. Thank you for any thoughts. I'll be back tomorrow morning.

Comments

[speakr2customrs.livejournal.com]

I'd take the 'were' out of #1. And remove the comma.

For #2 I'd say 'They were seated on the floor', or 'They were sitting on the floor', or 'They sat on the floor'.

For #3 I'd say 'The stone had sunk in the water'. Well, actually I wouldn't, as it's stating the bleedin' obvious.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that would be my instinct too.

[ningloreth.livejournal.com]

In the North West of England, we happily say, "He was sat..." but I remember my English teacher pointing out that it should be written "He was sitting..." (And we wouldn't say "He was look").

I've been doing a lot of Brit-picking recently, and I haven't noticed it in US English. Various forums on the web seem to agree that it's a North of England thing.

ETA Back from Asda with another thought: 'were sat' would be right if someone made them sit, or physically put them on the floor, but I don't think that would have troubled you...

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

Ah, yes, colloquial speech is indeed a different thing. This was an observation in narrative and not consistent with the character's voice.
The idea of coercion is a good one and yes, you are right, it would be correct then. Thank you.

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

Yes, my friend from Hartlepool would way "they were sat", but it's not accepted in written speech usually.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's true. I've also heard it spoken colloquially. Good point, although, unfortunately, not applicable to the situation where I came across this example.

[kazzy-cee.livejournal.com]

The last one is definitely the US way of saying the past tense (like 'dove' which I would say as 'dived' as in - into water). I thing that maybe the issue as I don't thing the other two are English grammar either.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

smwright, the only American to comment, so far, says that three is incorrect and she's only seen 1 and 2 in British English. It's true that 1 and 2 can be colloquial British English, but that wasn't the context of my question.
I think this is just incorrect grammar by the writers I have been seeing, who use it. But I seem to be seeing it so often, I began to doubt myself.

[quinara]

I'd write the first two (I think, possibly, if I were implying that they hadn't had much choice/influence on how they got there - in the first one that's implied to me because whoever's imagining things leaps straight to them standing there), but I'd swap 'sank' in the last one for 'sunk'.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

*laughs* Very true. When I asked the question, the idea of coercion didn't occur to me. I only wish that were the context in the source material.

[shapinglight]

No, no and no.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

*laughs* Agree, agree, agree.

[brunettepet.livejournal.com]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

He could imagine a place where he and X stood side by side.

They were sitting on the floor.

The stone sank.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

*grins* Yes.

I've been seeing these a lot lately, though, and was beginning to doubt my judgement that they are incorrect everywhere.

And I just realised, I said to kazzy_cee that only one American had commented here, but I don't actually know where you are. If you are also in the US, I am even more grateful for your reply, since it would reinforce that my language doubts were unfounded.

[brunettepet.livejournal.com]

Your language doubts are unfounded! I'm a native Californian and though I live in Texas now I only throw around the occasional y'all.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

*g* I love the casual use of y'all, when applied with the right accent; people from most countries and regions simply can't carry it off.

Thank you for the reassurance. Once I learn that what I considered incorrect grammar (from my British English perspective) is actually correct usage elsewhere, I do try to adapt and accommodate. It is good to know I won't have to try to do so with this.

I said to smwright, below, that I was beginning to suspect there is a widespread insecurity about using the past tense. I think I have seen an increase in present tense stories, lately. You read a lot and widely, have you noticed anything similar?

[brunettepet.livejournal.com]

I haven't noticed a trend but I'll be more aware now.

Teachers bullying children into using the word snuck is making me all kinds of Aaah! - it's such a wrong word I want to use it all the time.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

it's such a wrong word I want to use it all the time.
*laughs* It's funny, I quite like 'snuck', as long as it is recognised as dialect, rather than Received English.
There is a dialect word from my part of the world that I am similarly fond of, which drives my boss (also a local) crazy - 'tret' as the past tense of 'treat', as in, 'They tret me right' or 'I won't be tret that way'.
But, as you say, I don't particularly like the idea that teachers should cooperate with the language evolving. It will do that without their active assistance.

[janedavitt.livejournal.com]

He could imagine a place where he and X were stood, side by side.

No. 'were standing'


They were sat on the floor.

I could squint and see this one, but I'm from the Midlands.



The stone had sank in the water

No. Sunk.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

*grins* Yes. I agree. But I have been seeing this sort of construction an awful lot lately.

[smwright.livejournal.com]

The first two I have seen (many times) used colloquially in British English.

The third I have never seen used. *frowns* In my part of the world, we would say (in past tense), "The stone sank," which is the most direct form of saying the stone sank {read: sarcasm]. If one wanted to, for some reason, use the past perfect, then we would say, "The stone had sunk." In either event, that sentence [in your example] is grammatically incorrect.

I assume the first two, while used "properly" in colloquial speech, would be properly written in either "language" as, "He could imagine a place where he and X stood side by side," and, "They sat on the floor," again assuming the simple past tense. I try very hard to avoid passive voice in general. If that is preferred for some reason, then one could write, "He could imagine a place where he and X were standing side by side," and, "They were sitting on the floor."

I would not call this two peoples separated by a common language, as I have never seen the first two examples used in American English, only British, and if the third is used by an American, it is only used incorrectly.

And there you have my two cents' worth, for whatever that'll buy you these days, love. *g*

Edited for typo and clarification.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

Yes, the first two are used colloquially in Northern England English, but they are not good grammar and nobody would claim they were valid anywhere other than dialogue. They are the kind of thing that, if used in conversation, will often elicit an absent-minded correction on the spot.

I have seen all three a lot, lately, and was beginning to wonder if it was I who was wrong in assuming they are incorrect everywhere. *g* I did head the post "Potentially, once again, an example of two peoples separated by a common language".

Before I reminded myself not to make an assumption of error, I was beginning to suspect that they are a manifestation of a widespread fear of the past tense. A general insecurity about using it. I have also seen an increase in present tense stories, lately.

Thanks for the reassurance that they are not acceptable usage in the US.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

None of them look quite right - but none of them are bad enough to make me cringe.

Not exactly related but I know you will feel my pain... An American that I beta for says that she would have been disciplined at school if she had used 'sneaked' as the past-tense of the verb to sneak - and the correct version is definitely 'snuck' in the USA - at that point I wanted to sit and weep.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

Oh, they do make me cringe. Unfortunately.

*laughs* I do feel your pain. An American I have beta'd for was the reason I asked a question about 'gotten' a while ago. She said 'got' looked weird as the past tense of 'get'.
On the other hand, learning that was useful, and I have been trying to tolerate 'gotten' in narrative, since then.

[speakr2customrs.livejournal.com]

I've done some searching and 'snuck' appears to be a dialect word in some parts of the States, probably those parts inhabited by banjo-playing Republicans who do bad things to canoeists, that has become accepted as standard over there fairly recently through their repeated misuse drowning out the correct grammar of them thar pinko liberals with book-larnin'.

It's all the fault of the French. If their navy hadn't intervened in the American War of Independence, which was none of their business, the bloody colonials would have lost, George Washington could have been quietly and decently shot (to quote Harry Harrison from his alternate universe SF novel 'A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!'), and 'snuck' and 'gotten' would have been stamped out.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

*laughs*
Ignoring the racial slur against people who say 'snuck', I had a conversation recently with another LJ-er, who pointed out that 'gotten' is dialect usage in parts of Northern England and Scotland, which is very true. American English uses many words and forms that are no longer used in British English, but were once. For example, my mother was taught at an English school to spell 'realise' and related words with a 'z'.
Goodness, it's years since I read any Harry Harrison.

[speakr2customrs.livejournal.com]

When I first read your post I was trying to think of the misuse which annoys me more than any other and I just couldn't bring it to mind. I've remembered it now; 'drug' as the past tense of 'drag'.

[speakr2customrs.livejournal.com]

Ah, and now I see someone mention it further down in the comments.

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

In a vote for most annoying word, I would also vote for that one.

[sparrow2000.livejournal.com]

Like quinara I could see the first two if there was some kind of coercion involved, although then personally, my word choice would be different to illustrate that. For the third one I'd say 'sunk'.

Pets you :)

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

*purrs and head-butts your hand*

[daiseechain.livejournal.com]

No to one and three. Two jars me but I have heard the construction used in some regions.

I tend to be thrown by what I consider to be incorrect grammatical sentence structure when it is at odds with the voice of the narrator, but not when it otherwise fits with a character's personal phrasing.

But then I often find myself at odds with both US and UK grammar. NZ grammar fits somewhere between, or even in its own little world :-D

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

I agree, if there is a strong character related narrative voice, it can work, but I have seen this sort of construction so much, lately, I was beginning to doubt that it was wrong.

:-) Ah, yes, New Zealand, Canadian and Australian grammar are all different again and my ignorance there is even greater than my ignorance of US grammar.

[laazikaat.livejournal.com]

They all jarred me (English born Aussie) In Australia we tend to follow the British forms. These sentences look as though they were written by a So Cal American?

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

They jar horribly on me, which is why I asked. I was dreading the necessity of adapting and accepting them. It is very reassuring to know that I won't have to.

I remember that Australian English never bothered me. It never jarred. Of course, back then I was younger and probably nowhere near as intolerant *g*

I am taking strength from brunettepet, who says that they are wrong and that she is a Californian.

[laazikaat.livejournal.com]

I recommend checking with Whichclothes as well, any time you're not sure, she's Californian too, and a college professor, and never uses sentence structure like that.

It's bad enough when it shocks me out of a good story, but James did it during a concert and I couldn't focus on much until I'd pushed it aside.

He was commenting on the very few guys at his concerts compared to the overwheming number of girls and assumed the guys were only there because their girlfriends had drug them along

*sigh* Well, he's a So Cal guy isn't he?

[thismaz.livejournal.com]

I don't know Whichclothes and have never read their stuff. I don't think they started posting until after I had really stopped reading in BtVS.

Oh yes, drug sounds so awful when used that way. I heard it used a few years ago by an American artist being interviewed on BBC Radio 4. Up until then I had only seen it in fic and had assumed it was being used by young/new writers. *sighs* Well, the language changes and we can't hold back the tide. *g* I'll do my best, though. Pass me that shovel, would you, I need to dig a trench?

[mwrgana-muse.livejournal.com]

Hiya, Hon!

I've had an LJ notification so say that I've had a message from you but it isn't showing up in my in-box. Would you send it to my e-mail, please?
mwrgana at gmail dot com

This getting another year older at my age is no fun, yu know but it's good to know that someone is thinking of me, thank you!

As for the 'were stood/sat' discussion above, I remember your picking me up on this in Haunted. I was surprised because it is so usual here that I've never thought of it as colloquial - perhaps it's another example of Welsh construction into English.

My father once corrected one of his young apprentices when she asked "Where's it to?" She thought a moment, perhaps remembered something about prepositions at the end of a sentence and tried, "Where to is it? ?" Dad gave up.