I was sat
Harvey Van Sickle
(about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the by):
"As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with Duncan
Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.html)
Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd never,
ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b) dialect, (c)
fine, or (d) none of the above.
It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear the
reactions of others to it.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Adrian Bailey
news:Xns96C2E167...@62.253.170.163...
> I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley Giles
> (about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the by):
>
> "As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with Duncan
> Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
> http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.html)
>
> Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd never,
> ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b) dialect, (c)
> fine, or (d) none of the above.
>
> It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear the
> reactions of others to it.
I'd say it was fairly common among English dialects. It's certainly part of
mine.
Adrian
Laura F. Spira
> I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley Giles
> (about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the by):
>
> "As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with Duncan
> Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
> http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.html)
>
> Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd never,
> ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b) dialect, (c)
> fine, or (d) none of the above.
>
> It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear the
> reactions of others to it.
>
Hm. Earlier this evening, I said "There we were, sat on the balcony,
watching the water rise.." I'm not sure that I would write it that way,
though.
Borderline illiterate, eh? At least I never say "bored of".
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Harvey Van Sickle
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>> I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley
>> Giles (about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the
>> by):
>>
>> "As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with
>> Duncan Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
>> http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.htm
>> l)
>>
>> Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>> never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>> dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>
>> It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear
>> the reactions of others to it.
>
> Hm. Earlier this evening, I said "There we were, sat on the
> balcony, watching the water rise.." I'm not sure that I would
> write it that way, though.
Hm back.... In that form -- with the initial "there", and dividing the
"were" from the "sat" with a comma -- it seems different somehow.
Would you naturally have said it without the initial positioning
"there"? (That is, would "We were sat on the balcony, watching the
water rise" seem entirely natural?)
> Borderline illiterate, eh? At least I never say "bored of".
As they emoticate in other groups: ;)
Laura F. Spira
> On 30 Aug 2005, Laura F. Spira wrote
>
>
>>Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>
>>>I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley
>>>Giles (about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the
>>>by):
>>>
>>>"As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with
>>>Duncan Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
>>>http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.htm
>>>l)
>>>
>>>Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>>>never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>>>dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>>
>>>It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear
>>>the reactions of others to it.
>>
>>Hm. Earlier this evening, I said "There we were, sat on the
>>balcony, watching the water rise.." I'm not sure that I would
>>write it that way, though.
>
>
> Hm back.... In that form -- with the initial "there", and dividing the
> "were" from the "sat" with a comma -- it seems different somehow.
Possibly. I've just checked some recent emails at random and found that
I wrote: "We were sat quite high up in the balcony.." and "I was sat
waiting for her..". It's certainly part of my informal speech.
>
> Would you naturally have said it without the initial positioning
> "there"? (That is, would "We were sat on the balcony, watching the
> water rise" seem entirely natural?)
Yes, I think so. (And the rising water was far from natural, believe me...)
>
>
>>Borderline illiterate, eh? At least I never say "bored of".
>
>
> As they emoticate in other groups: ;)
>
;) back.
Harvey Van Sickle
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
-snip-
>> Would you naturally have said it without the initial positioning
>> "there"? (That is, would "We were sat on the balcony, watching
>> the water rise" seem entirely natural?)
>
> Yes, I think so. (And the rising water was far from natural,
> believe me...)
Thanks; it's also clearly unremarkable for Adrian. It may be pondian
-- we may find that out -- or (more probably) just that I've not seen
it written down very often.
Harvey Van Sickle
> "Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96C2E167...@62.253.170.163...
-snip-
>> Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>> never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>> dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>
>> It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear
>> the reactions of others to it.
>
> I'd say it was fairly common among English dialects. It's
> certainly part of mine.
Would you use it as standard written English, or is it a verbal thing?
(I suspect it's either a pondian thing, or simply that I've not seen it
written down very often.)
Skitt
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>> Laura F. Spira wrote
>>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>>> I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley
>>>> Giles (about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the
>>>> by):
>>>>
>>>> "As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with
>>>> Duncan Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
>>>> http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.htm
>>>> l)
>>>>
>>>> Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>>>> never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>>>> dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear
>>>> the reactions of others to it.
>>>
>>> Hm. Earlier this evening, I said "There we were, sat on the
>>> balcony, watching the water rise.." I'm not sure that I would
>>> write it that way, though.
>>
>> Hm back.... In that form -- with the initial "there", and dividing
>> the "were" from the "sat" with a comma -- it seems different somehow.
>
> Possibly. I've just checked some recent emails at random and found
> that I wrote: "We were sat quite high up in the balcony.." and "I was sat
> waiting for her..". It's certainly part of my informal speech.
It would be acceptable, although a bit strange, to me if by "we were sat"
you meant that someone had made you sit where you were sitting. Anyway,
that's the meaning I infer when encountering the expression.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Areff
>>>Hm. Earlier this evening, I said "There we were, sat on the
>>>balcony, watching the water rise.." I'm not sure that I would
>>>write it that way, though.
>
> I wrote: "We were sat quite high up in the balcony.."and "I was sat
> waiting for her..". It's certainly part of my informal speech.
>
>>
>> Would you naturally have said it without the initial positioning
>> "there"? (That is, would "We were sat on the balcony, watching the
>> water rise" seem entirely natural?)
>
> Yes, I think so. (And the rising water was far from natural, believe me...)
Balconies and rising water ... Have you been in Nawlins very recently?
Arfur Million
> On 30 Aug 2005, Adrian Bailey wrote
>> "Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96C2E167...@62.253.170.163...
>
> -snip-
>
>>> Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>>> never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>>> dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>>
>>> It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear
>>> the reactions of others to it.
>>
>> I'd say it was fairly common among English dialects. It's
>> certainly part of mine.
>
> Would you use it as standard written English, or is it a verbal thing?
>
> (I suspect it's either a pondian thing, or simply that I've not seen it
> written down very often.)
>
> --
It looks and sounds normal to me too (BrE), and I would expect to find it
both written and spoken.
Regards,
Arfur
M. J. Powell
<harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley Giles
>(about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the by):
>
>"As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with Duncan
>Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
>http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.html)
>
>Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd never,
>ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b) dialect, (c)
>fine, or (d) none of the above.
>
>It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear the
>reactions of others to it.
It's commonplace in the NW. Even in the local newspapers and on the BBC.
Mike
John Dean
> On 30 Aug 2005, Laura F. Spira wrote
>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
>>> Would you naturally have said it without the initial positioning
>>> "there"? (That is, would "We were sat on the balcony, watching
>>> the water rise" seem entirely natural?)
>>
>> Yes, I think so. (And the rising water was far from natural,
>> believe me...)
>
> Thanks; it's also clearly unremarkable for Adrian. It may be pondian
> -- we may find that out -- or (more probably) just that I've not seen
> it written down very often.
I would stop short of Hylda Baker's "I was sat sitting there" but
otherwise have used (and will use again) "I was sat."
It doesn't attract any hits in Mastertexts but finds 36,000 in Google -
.uk sites seem to dominate.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Areff
[re: "was sat"]
> (I suspect it's either a pondian thing, or simply that I've not seen it
> written down very often.)
Google:
"was sat" 95200
"was sat" site:.uk 29800
RichouxRatio: 3:1
Compare, say:
"was seated" 766000
"was seated" site:.uk 15400
RichouxRatio: 50:1
Tentative conclusion: Either "was sat" is a UKism, "was seated" is an
Americanism, or both.
There's one GoogleGroups hit for "was sat" author:"tony cooper", but it's
in a quotation of another poster's sentence in an SCI posting.
Robin Bignall
<harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On 30 Aug 2005, Laura F. Spira wrote
>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>-snip-
>
>>> Would you naturally have said it without the initial positioning
>>> "there"? (That is, would "We were sat on the balcony, watching
>>> the water rise" seem entirely natural?)
>>
>> Yes, I think so. (And the rising water was far from natural,
>> believe me...)
>
>Thanks; it's also clearly unremarkable for Adrian. It may be pondian
>-- we may find that out -- or (more probably) just that I've not seen
>it written down very often.
I think you hear it more often the further north you go. "I was sat
waiting for him" would not be unusual in Nottingham's spoken dialect,
and my wife, who was born in Yorkshire, would not twitch too much on
hearing "We were sat sitting..." You might see it written in local
dialogue.
--
Robin
Hoddesdon, England
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On 30 Aug 2005, Adrian Bailey wrote
>> "Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96C2E167...@62.253.170.163...
>
> -snip-
>
>>> Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>>> never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>>> dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>>
>>> It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear
>>> the reactions of others to it.
>>
>> I'd say it was fairly common among English dialects. It's
>> certainly part of mine.
>
> Would you use it as standard written English, or is it a verbal thing?
>
> (I suspect it's either a pondian thing, or simply that I've not seen it
> written down very often.)
Does it get better if you add "down": "He was sat down and told in no
uncertain terms not to do it again"? What if you put it in the active
voice: "I sat him down and told him in no uncertain terms not to do it
again"?
I suspect that this is a different sense from the questioned
"As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with
Duncan Fletcher and Troy Cooley."
but it's actually the way I read it: the speaker had been banished to
the coach's room.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |dominating the world is that
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support
|opportunities.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis
(650)857-7572
Dick Chambers
"Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
>>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote
>>>> Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>>>> never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>>>> dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>
> Does it get better if you add "down": "He was sat down and told in no
> uncertain terms not to do it again"? What if you put it in the active
> voice: "I sat him down and told him in no uncertain terms not to do it
> again"?
>
> I suspect that this is a different sense from the questioned
>
> "As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with
> Duncan Fletcher and Troy Cooley."
>
> but it's actually the way I read it: the speaker had been banished to
> the coach's room.
>
It seems to me, Evan, that you might be making the mistake of assuming that
"I was sat" is a transitive verb (passive case). To me, after 33 years of
living in Yorkshire, it feels more like an intransitive verb, the equivalent
of "I was sitting".
"I were sat drinking my beer int' pub, minding my own, when all of a sudden
this attractive young lass comes up to me, bold as brass. ....."
This sort of construction is common in Leeds and the surrounding area, to
the extent that I have started doing it myself. It is dialect in this part
of the UK.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
I think it just means "I was sitting"--as "I was seated" does, even in
American English.
--
Jerry Friedman
Laura F. Spira
No, I was in Switzerland. There has been severe flooding across Central
Europe over the last two weeks, but very little reporting of it in the
international press. Katrina has dominated the headlines. Interesting,
in view of our recent discussion of media perspectives on the world.
Jim Lawton
wrote:
>I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley Giles
>(about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the by):
>
>"As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with Duncan
>Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
>http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.html)
>
>Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd never,
>ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b) dialect, (c)
>fine, or (d) none of the above.
>
>It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear the
>reactions of others to it.
I think it sounds horribly illiterate in normal spoken English (it's probably
more acceptable in northern dialect speakers, so it be dialect) but it's
rapidly becoming common place, and i suspect will soon become the norm. When
people say "We are sat" or even "I am stood" on TV, and I mutter the correct
form at it, my partner says - "That one's a lost cause, learn to live with it."
--
Jim
"a single species has come to dominate ...
reproducing at bacterial levels, almost as an
infectious plague envelops its host"
http://tinyurl.com/c88xs
Jim Lawton
>
>I think it sounds horribly illiterate in normal spoken English (it's probably
>more acceptable in northern dialect speakers, so it could be dialect) but it's
^^^^
>rapidly becoming common place, and i suspect will soon become the norm. When
^ typo, sorry
Matti Lamprhey
>
> [...] There has been severe flooding across Central
> Europe over the last two weeks, but very little reporting of it in the
> international press. Katrina has dominated the headlines. Interesting,
> in view of our recent discussion of media perspectives on the world.
I'm not sure about that. The BBC certainly devoted some time to the
alpine rainfall and the fires in Portugal which coincided with it. But
perhaps you meant the printed media.
Matti
Bob Martin
No, I've noticed for many years that the BBC gives far more coverage to
English speaking countries, no matter how far away, than it does to our
near neighbours.
Just mental laziness and poor language skills.
Dick Chambers
Bob Martin, Matti Lamprhey and Laura F Spira wrote
>>>
>>> [...] There has been severe flooding across Central
>>> Europe over the last two weeks, but very little reporting of it in the
>>> international press. Katrina has dominated the headlines. Interesting,
>>> in view of our recent discussion of media perspectives on the world.
>>
>>I'm not sure about that. The BBC certainly devoted some time to the
>>alpine rainfall and the fires in Portugal which coincided with it. But
>>perhaps you meant the printed media.
>
> No, I've noticed for many years that the BBC gives far more coverage to
> English speaking countries, no matter how far away, than it does to our
> near neighbours.
> Just mental laziness and poor language skills.
Simply not true. The BBC corresponents in the neighbouring European
countries are neither mentally lazy nor do they have poor language skills.
Most of them speak fluently the language of the European country to which
they have been assigned. The Alpine flooding, the Potuguese forest fires,
and Hurricane Katarina were all extensively covered by the BBC news reports,
and I feel that there are no grounds for this type of complaint against the
BBC.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Ross Howard
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrought:
>
>Bob Martin, Matti Lamprhey and Laura F Spira wrote
>>>>
>>>> [...] There has been severe flooding across Central
>>>> Europe over the last two weeks, but very little reporting of it in the
>>>> international press. Katrina has dominated the headlines. Interesting,
>>>> in view of our recent discussion of media perspectives on the world.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure about that. The BBC certainly devoted some time to the
>>>alpine rainfall and the fires in Portugal which coincided with it. But
>>>perhaps you meant the printed media.
>>
>> No, I've noticed for many years that the BBC gives far more coverage to
>> English speaking countries, no matter how far away, than it does to our
>> near neighbours.
>> Just mental laziness and poor language skills.
>
>Simply not true. The BBC corresponents in the neighbouring European
>countries are neither mentally lazy nor do they have poor language skills.
>Most of them speak fluently the language of the European country to which
>they have been assigned.
They maintain an inexplicably low profile, though. The Guardian's
Madrid correspondent, Giles Tremlett, is always highly visible as a
guest on current-affiars shows on Spanish TV whenever anything
Brit-related is being discussed, yet I don't even know who the Beeb's
correspondent is -- or even if they have one -- despite the BBC's
lasting prestige here as a Great Democratic Institution.
--
Ross Howard
Laura F. Spira
My only contact with the media while in the thick of it was via CNN
which did show a brief shot of the Berne airlift and an interview with
people lugging sandbags about in a tiny Austrian village. My perception
that there had been little coverage was initiated by the lack of worried
phone calls received from family and friends who knew where we were and
was reinforced by the number of people who have, since our return, been
surprised to hear that our holiday suffered any disruption.
Jim Lawton
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>> On 30 Aug 2005, Laura F. Spira wrote
>>
>>
>>>Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>>
>>>>I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley
>>>>Giles (about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the
>>>>by):
>>>>
>>>>"As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with
>>>>Duncan Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
>>>>http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.htm
>>>>l)
>>>>
>>>>Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>>>>never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>>>>dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>>>
>>>>It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear
>>>>the reactions of others to it.
>>>
>>>Hm. Earlier this evening, I said "There we were, sat on the
>>>balcony, watching the water rise.." I'm not sure that I would
>>>write it that way, though.
>>
And no one has yet mentioned Hilda Baker ("She knows you know") who used to say
(it was her wasn't it?) "There I was, stood standing etc...".
>>
>> Hm back.... In that form -- with the initial "there", and dividing the
>> "were" from the "sat" with a comma -- it seems different somehow.
>
>Possibly. I've just checked some recent emails at random and found that
>I wrote: "We were sat quite high up in the balcony.." and "I was sat
>waiting for her..". It's certainly part of my informal speech.
>
>>
>> Would you naturally have said it without the initial positioning
>> "there"? (That is, would "We were sat on the balcony, watching the
>> water rise" seem entirely natural?)
>
>Yes, I think so. (And the rising water was far from natural, believe me...)
>
>>
>>
>>>Borderline illiterate, eh? At least I never say "bored of".
>>
>>
>> As they emoticate in other groups: ;)
>>
>
>;) back.
--
Adrian Bailey
news:XHeRe.1951$k4....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
I disagree, and so do some of the BBC's own reporters, to judge from an item
on a recent edition of Radio 4's "From Our Own Correspondent". The issue is
not the correspondents themselves but BBC News's editorial policy. One or
two major European events do get covered, albeit to a lesser extent than
similar events in the US or Middle East, but much else is sidelined.
Adrian
Adrian Bailey
"Jim Lawton" <uc...@use.your.initiative> wrote in message
news:kkmah11cjag1patn5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:10:03 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harve...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley Giles
> >(about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the by):
> >
> >"As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with Duncan
> >Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
> >http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.html)
> >
> >Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd never,
> >ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b) dialect, (c)
> >fine, or (d) none of the above.
> >
> >It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear the
> >reactions of others to it.
>
> I think it sounds horribly illiterate in normal spoken English (it's
probably
> more acceptable in northern dialect speakers, so it be dialect) but it's
> rapidly becoming common place, and i suspect will soon become the norm.
When
> people say "We are sat" or even "I am stood" on TV, and I mutter the
correct
> form at it, my partner says - "That one's a lost cause, learn to live with
it."
The fact that "to be sat/stood" has pedigree and is restricted to a couple
of related verbs should make it relatively unobjectionable IMO. I think
that, as in some other cases, these forms have been able to develop because
of the lack of ambiguity: it's not often that these verbs are used in the
passive when referring to a(n adult) person.
I contrast this with the "I've went" form which has been discussed before on
aue and is becoming ever more (evermore?) prevalent. I'm afraid that within
fifty years everyone in Britain will be saying "he's bit", "they've came"
and "she's fell".
Adrian
Robert Bannister
> On 30 Aug 2005, Adrian Bailey wrote
>
>>"Harvey Van Sickle" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns96C2E167...@62.253.170.163...
>
>
> -snip-
>
>
>>>Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>>>never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>>>dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>>
>>>It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear
>>>the reactions of others to it.
>>
>>I'd say it was fairly common among English dialects. It's
>>certainly part of mine.
>
>
> Would you use it as standard written English, or is it a verbal thing?
>
> (I suspect it's either a pondian thing, or simply that I've not seen it
> written down very often.)
>
This was discussed quite recently on AUE. There is also "He was stood in
the centre of the room". There is no passiveness about the construction,
but I suspect the idea does involve deliberate placement.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
>> On 30 Aug 2005, Laura F. Spira wrote
>>
>>
>>> Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>>>
>>>> I noticed this opening phrase in a column by the cricketer Ashley
>>>> Giles (about his winning runs in Sunday's test, but that's by the
>>>> by):
>>>> "As England wickets tumbled I was sat in the coach's room with
>>>> Duncan Fletcher and Troy Cooley." (ref:
>>>> http://sport.guardian.co.uk/ashes2005/story/0,15993,1558596,00.htm
>>>> l)
>>>> Whilst "I was sat" is definitely not part of my idiom -- I'd
>>>> never, ever use it -- I've no idea whether it's (a) wrong, (b)
>>>> dialect, (c) fine, or (d) none of the above.
>>>>
>>>> It sounds borderline illiterate to me, but I'd be curious to hear
>>>> the reactions of others to it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hm. Earlier this evening, I said "There we were, sat on the
>>> balcony, watching the water rise.." I'm not sure that I would
>>> write it that way, though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hm back.... In that form -- with the initial "there", and dividing the
>> "were" from the "sat" with a comma -- it seems different somehow.
>
>
> Possibly. I've just checked some recent emails at random and found that
> I wrote: "We were sat quite high up in the balcony.." and "I was sat
> waiting for her..". It's certainly part of my informal speech.
Oddly enough, I feel this is a formal construction. I would equate "was
sat/stood" with "was positioned" (deliberately, cunningly, accidentally).
--
Rob Bannister
Stephen Hayes
Matti Lamprhey wrote in a message to All:
ML> From: "Matti Lamprhey" <ma...@official-totally-reversed.com>
ML> "Laura F. Spira" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote...
>
> [...] There has been severe flooding across Central
> Europe over the last two weeks, but very little reporting of it in the
> international press. Katrina has dominated the headlines. Interesting,
> in view of our recent discussion of media perspectives on the world.
ML> I'm not sure about that. The BBC certainly devoted some time to
ML> the alpine rainfall and the fires in Portugal which coincided with
ML> it. But perhaps you meant the printed media.
The media seem to have strange criteria for what they consider newsworthy.
In the six months before he died, the Pope of Rome, John Paul II, made front
page news every time he sneezed. By the time he actually died, they had nothing
to say that they hadn't already reiterated ad nauseam for several months.
When the Pope of Alexandria, Petros VII, died last year in an air crash, along
with several other bishops, and there was a lot of dramatic air-sea rescue
stuff, it barely rated a mention in a tiny paragraph at the bottom of page 5.
It was major news in Greece, of course, where it happened, and seems to have
had the effect of a shake-up in the Greek air force, because when an airliner
similarly lost radio contact a couple of weeks ago they lost no time in
scrambling fighters to go and look for it.
--
Steve Hayes
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail: haye...@hotmail.com - If it doesn't work, see webpage.
FamilyNet <> Internet Gated Mail
http://www.familynet-international.org
Linz
I'm glad I read the whole thread before mentioning "sat sitting"! I am
another who finds "I was sat" to be unremarkable.