GRammatical issue
Kumar AN
'He was sat there looking watching TV'
I would have thought it should have been
'He was sitting there watching TV'
Similar examples can be given about the word 'stood' which I have seen used
in the following way -
'He was stood there'
If these are incorrect as I believe they are, why is it so widely used in
Britain? I've heard people from various regions of the UK use them. At
school we were taught to use 'sitting' and 'standing' instead of 'sat' and
'stood' in the above context.
Any comments, thoughts welcome.
Arv
Don Phillipson
news:9kdpn0$93g$1...@canard.ulcc.ac.uk...
> Is the following sentence grammatically correct -
> . . .
> If these are incorrect as I believe they are, why is it so widely used in
> Britain? I've heard people from various regions of the UK use them
The answer is essentially circular:
1. Old style (prescriptive grammar):
1.a The verb "stand" is irregular i.e. non-intuitive.
1.b So children and some adults make errors when using it.
2. New style (descriptive grammar):
2.a "He was sat" and "He was sitting" are variants of
the usage.
2.b One use is not "correct" and the other wrong. If
we want to discriminate between them, the only legitimate
grounds of discrimination are:
-- function (intelligibility);
-- conformity to an agreed but arbitrary set of rules (cf. item 1).
David Crystal's Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English
Language discusses both sets of ideas.
Mike Lyle
>
>Is the following sentence grammatically correct -
>
>'He was sat there looking watching TV'
>
>I would have thought it should have been
>
>'He was sitting there watching TV'
You're right.
>
>Similar examples can be given about the word 'stood' which I have seen used
>in the following way -
>
>'He was stood there'
>
>If these are incorrect as I believe they are, why is it so widely used in
>Britain? [...]
Because colloquial English isn't the same as standard English.
This particular usage is one of those few colloquialisms which I would be
prepared to call "Bad English", because, theoretically at any rate, it could
sometimes cause misunderstanding. "He was sat" appears to be passive, and so
suggests that the person had been placed in a sitting position by somebody else
-- one might do it to a baby, for example. But of course in the cases you refer
to it isn't intended to make any such suggestion, and isn't intended to express
the passive voice.
There's a fine line to draw here: good spoken English isn't the same as written
English, and the very few people one meets who constantly speak written English
sound very strange (the late J. Enoch Powell comes to mind). But both bad and
good spoken English can be either formal or informal; and formal and informal
English are both very variable.
Mike.
R H Draney
wrote:
>On 3 Aug 2001 09:08:48 GMT, in <9kdpn0$93g$1...@canard.ulcc.ac.uk>, Kumar AN wrote:
>>
>>'He was sat there looking watching TV'
>>
>>'He was stood there'
>
>This particular usage is one of those few colloquialisms which I would be
>prepared to call "Bad English", because, theoretically at any rate, it could
>sometimes cause misunderstanding. "He was sat" appears to be passive, and so
>suggests that the person had been placed in a sitting position by somebody else
>-- one might do it to a baby, for example. But of course in the cases you refer
>to it isn't intended to make any such suggestion, and isn't intended to express
>the passive voice.
This becomes grammatical if you change "sat" to "set" (the participle
form of the verb "set")..."sit/set" is second only to "lie/lay" in
confusing third-graders and former third-graders, and the only reason
it doesn't come in first is that all the principle parts of "set" are
identical (and don't look like any of the parts of "sit")....
"Stand", by way of contrast, is both transitive and intransitive, so
both "The boy stood on the burning deck" and "The boy stood the
cardboard cutout figure on the burning deck" are grammatical and
meaningful....r
--
My other tractor is a Hoyt-Clagwell
www.mantra.com/jyotish
af...@city.ac.uk (Kumar AN) posted:
"He was sat there looking watching TV" is simply a peculiar
style, that's all. "He was sitting there watching TV" is
what I recommend on the basis of popular, and my usage.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Mudge
message ...
"He was sat there" is common colloquial Northern English. Not sure about the
"looking watching TV bit, though"
--
Peter
http://www.curmudgeon.co.uk
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Everything that's fun in life is dangerous. And everything that isn't fun
is dangerous too. It's impossible to be alive and safe." (...P. J. O'Rourke)
www.mantra.com/jyotish
"Mudge" <mu...@ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> posted:
> http://www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message ...
>>In article <9kdpn0$93g$1...@canard.ulcc.ac.uk>,
>> af...@city.ac.uk (Kumar AN) posted:
>>> Is the following sentence grammatically correct -
>>> 'He was sat there looking watching TV'
>>> I would have thought it should have been
>>> 'He was sitting there watching TV'
>>> Similar examples can be given about the word 'stood'
>>> which I have seen used in the following way -
>>> 'He was stood there'
>>> If these are incorrect as I believe they are, why is it so widely used in
>>> Britain? I've heard people from various regions of the UK use them. At
>>> school we were taught to use 'sitting' and 'standing' instead of 'sat'
>>> and 'stood' in the above context. Any comments, thoughts welcome. Arv
>> "He was sat there looking watching TV" is simply a peculiar
>> style, that's all. "He was sitting there watching TV" is
>> what I recommend on the basis of popular, and my usage.
>> - Jai Maharaj
> "He was sat there" is common colloquial Northern English. Not sure
> about the "looking watching TV bit, though"
It is likely that "looking watching" is just a way of
adding emphasis, or habitual use, or both, in that region.
Mike Stevens
There's also "stood standing there" (which comes into my mind in Norah
Batty's voice).
--
Mike Stevens, nb Felis Catus II
I didn't believe in re-incarnation last time, either.
Off-list replies, please, to michael...@which.net
Web site http:///www.mike-stevens.co.uk ("Waterways World" magazine's web
site of the month, March 2001)
David
Unlikely, I would have thought. However, the insertion of a comma would
allow the two words to sit together quite nicely.
The repetition of "-ing" is clumsy, so I would prefer to hear "he was
sat watching TV" rather than "he was sitting watching TV".
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/
Six months of Agony with the Aunt from "Woman & Mortuary"
www.mantra.com/jyotish
David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
> In article <English-1998...@news.mantra.com>,
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>> In article <9kf50g$6d4$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Mudge"
>> <mu...@ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> posted:
>>> http://www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message ...
>>>>In article <9kdpn0$93g$1...@canard.ulcc.ac.uk>, af...@city.ac.uk
>>>> (Kumar AN) posted:
>>>>> Is the following sentence grammatically correct - 'He was sat
>>>>> there looking watching TV' I would have thought it should have
>>>>> been 'He was sitting there watching TV' Similar examples can be
>>>>> given about the word 'stood' which I have seen used in the
>>>>> following way - 'He was stood there' If these are incorrect as I
>>>>> believe they are, why is it so widely used in Britain? I've heard
>>>>> people from various regions of the UK use them. At school we were
>>>>> taught to use 'sitting' and 'standing' instead of 'sat' and
>>>>> 'stood' in the above context. Any comments, thoughts welcome. Arv
>>>> "He was sat there looking watching TV" is simply a peculiar style,
>>>> that's all. "He was sitting there watching TV" is what I
>>>> recommend on the basis of popular, and my usage. - Jai Maharaj
>>> "He was sat there" is common colloquial Northern English. Not sure
>>> about the "looking watching TV bit, though"
>> It is likely that "looking watching" is just a way of adding
>> emphasis, or habitual use, or both, in that region. - Jai Maharaj
> Unlikely, I would have thought. However, the insertion of a comma would
> allow the two words to sit together quite nicely.
> The repetition of "-ing" is clumsy, so I would prefer to hear "he was
> sat watching TV" rather than "he was sitting watching TV".
I am in Hawaii, the 50th state, so I'd gladly accept
the pidgin spoken here: "He stay watching TV."
David
Dr. Jai Maharaj <address....@web.site> wrote:
[Snip]
> I am in Hawaii, the 50th state, so I'd gladly accept
> the pidgin spoken here: "He stay watching TV."
Sorry, I hadn't realised. Please accept my sympathies.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/mavic/
Mavica Mania - It's different but is it art?
www.mantra.com/jyotish
David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
> In article <English-1998...@news.mantra.com>,
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>> I am in Hawaii, the 50th state, so I'd gladly accept
>> the pidgin spoken here: "He stay watching TV."
> Sorry, I hadn't realised. Please accept my sympathies.
> - David
Sympathies ought to go to those who want to live
in this paradise but can't.
David
Dr. Jai Maharaj <address....@web.site> wrote:
> > In article <English-1998...@news.mantra.com>,
> > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> >> I am in Hawaii, the 50th state, so I'd gladly accept
> >> the pidgin spoken here: "He stay watching TV."
>
> > Sorry, I hadn't realised. Please accept my sympathies.
> Sympathies ought to go to those who want to live
> in this paradise but can't.
Aren't you forgetting that one man's paradise is another's purgatory?
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/cook/24mct-0.htm
4 Mock Curd Tart Recipes
www.mantra.com/jyotish
David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
> In article <English-20983...@news.mantra.com>,
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>> In article <4aa4a31...@dacha.freeuk.com>,
>> David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
>>> In article <English-1998...@news.mantra.com>,
>>> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>> I am in Hawaii, the 50th state, so I'd gladly accept
>>>> the pidgin spoken here: "He stay watching TV."
>>> Sorry, I hadn't realised. Please accept my sympathies.
>> Sympathies ought to go to those who want to live
>> in this paradise but can't.
> Aren't you forgetting that one man's paradise is another's purgatory?
The above seems to suggest that the number of people
who consider Hawaii a paradise is matched by the number
of people who consider to be pygatory. With millions
of visitors each year, and the skyrocketing prices for
homes and nearly all other things, that just isn't so.
David
Dr. Jai Maharaj <address....@web.site> wrote:
No it doesn't. All it means is that while one man might think well of
some thing, one other man might think ill of it; the implication,
however, is that not matter how many men do think well of it, you
cannot generalise to include all men. [1]
[1] Note that I do not use the word "men" generically: I am a man; I
cannot speak for women. [2]
[2] Read that last bit as you will.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/07-0.htm
...can you tell me what is the correct time to boil an egg?
www.mantra.com/jyotish
David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
Regardless, oops, let's throw a usage curve here . . . irregardless
of your nitpicking, the fact remains that Hawaii is one of the, if
not the, most desirable places to visit and in which to live in the world.
David
<address....@web.site> wrote:
> In article <4aa52a7...@dacha.freeuk.com>, David
> <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
> > In article <English-2099...@news.mantra.com>, Dr. Jai
> > Maharaj <address....@web.site> wrote:
> > > In article <4aa4efe...@dacha.freeuk.com>, David
> > > <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
> > >
> > > > Aren't you forgetting that one man's paradise is another's
> > > > purgatory?
>
> >> The above seems to suggest that the number of people
> >> who consider Hawaii a paradise is matched by the number
> >> of people who consider to be pygatory. With millions
> >> of visitors each year, and the skyrocketing prices for
> >> homes and nearly all other things, that just isn't so.
>
> > No it doesn't. All it means is that while one man might think well
> > of some thing, one other man might think ill of it; the
> > implication, however, is that not matter how many men do think well
> > of it, you cannot generalise to include all men. [1] [1] Note that
> > I do not use the word "men" generically: I am a man; I cannot speak
> > for women. [2] [2] Read that last bit as you will.
> Regardless, oops, let's throw a usage curve here . . . irregardless
> of your nitpicking, the fact remains that Hawaii is one of the, if
> not the, most desirable places to visit and in which to live in the
> world.
Nitpicking? I expected better of the world renowned Jai Maharaj.
It does depend on what you mean by "desirable" though, doesn't it. To
someone who desires more than anything to visit or live in a place
other than Hawaii, then Hawaii is quite obviously not the most
desirable etc., etc. If you mean the most visited place or the most
lived in place, then you might like to furnish us with figures to
support that claim but I should think there are many places on Earth
that are visited - and with desire - more. If you mean the amount of
money expended by people in visiting and setting up residence in
Hawaii, then perhaps somewhere like Mars might have a better claim.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/
Vale RISC OS: Requiescat In Pace (aka Free Stuff)
- Free Desktop Software, Font, Playing Cards and Mah-Jong Tiles
Molly
m>, (address....@web.site) wrote
>Regardless, oops, let's throw a usage curve here . . . irregardless
>of your nitpicking, the fact remains that Hawaii is one of the, if
>not the, most desirable places to visit and in which to live in the world.
Is that because Hawaiians are too laid-back to snip?
--
Molly Mockford
(remove -nospam to email me)
http://www.pagination.co.uk
Paul Pfalzner
"Molly" <mo...@mockfords-nospam.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LrREvbCn...@clara.net...
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, in article
<English-2088...@news.mantra.co
> m>, (address....@web.site) wrote
>
> >Regardless, oops, let's throw a usage curve here . . . irregardless
> >of your nitpicking, the fact remains that Hawaii is one of the, if
> >not the, most desirable places to visit and in which to live in the
world.
>
> Is that because Hawaiians are too laid-back to snip?
I have been in Hawaii twice - but would hardly agree about it being so
highly desirable. Nice for a holiday - but to live there? I doubt it is
paradisical. Too many tourists, too expensive, no changes of seasons.
P.
Jacko
> >not the, most desirable places to visit and in which to live in the
world.
>
> Is that because Hawaiians are too laid-back to snip?
Nah -- it's because this particular Hawiian has inherited the Uncle Sam
blinkers that stop you seeing that there is a whole planet of other places
out there
You can stuff Hawaii, give me Benidorm anyday...
wanderer
<address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
in message news:English-2088...@news.mantra.com...
< snip>
> Regardless, oops, let's throw a usage curve here . . . irregardless
> of your nitpicking, the fact remains that Hawaii is one of the, if
> not the, most desirable places to visit and in which to live in the world.
That isn't a fact, it's your opinion. I for one have never had the slightest
inclination to visit or reside in Hawaii, although I won't dispute that some
people might find it an attractive destination.
You have a right to an opinion, and I'll defend your right to express that
opinion, but please don't try to convince me that your opinions are facts.
Regards,
--
The Wanderer
Have I understood what the other guy is saying?
Have I said what I mean? Have I meant what I said?
www.mantra.com/jyotish
David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
> In article <English-2088...@news.mantra.com>,
Your expectations are your business -- learn to deal with them.
> It does depend on what you mean by "desirable" though, doesn't it. To
> someone who desires more than anything to visit or live in a place
> other than Hawaii, then Hawaii is quite obviously not the most
> desirable etc., etc. If you mean the most visited place or the most
> lived in place, then you might like to furnish us with figures to
> support that claim but I should think there are many places on Earth
> that are visited - and with desire - more. If you mean the amount of
> money expended by people in visiting and setting up residence in
> Hawaii, then perhaps somewhere like Mars might have a better claim.
The Hawaii Visitors Bureau (find it on the web) has been
publishing for years that Hawaii is the most traveled-to
destination in the world. Find the claim and challenge
them if you wish, but I believe it.
www.mantra.com/jyotish
Molly <mo...@mockfords.clara.co.uk> posted:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, in article <English-2088...@news.mantra.co
> m>, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>Regardless, oops, let's throw a usage curve here . . . irregardless
>>of your nitpicking, the fact remains that Hawaii is one of the, if
>>not the, most desirable places to visit and in which to live in the world.
> Is that because Hawaiians are too laid-back to snip?
Are you a snipped one?
www.mantra.com/jyotish
"PM Pfalzner" <pax...@ncf.ca> posted:
>
> "Molly" <mo...@mockfords-nospam.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:LrREvbCn...@clara.net...
> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, in article
> <English-2088...@news.mantra.co
> > m>, (address....@web.site) wrote
> >
> > >Regardless, oops, let's throw a usage curve here . . . irregardless
> > >of your nitpicking, the fact remains that Hawaii is one of the, if
> > >not the, most desirable places to visit and in which to live in the
> world.
> >
> > Is that because Hawaiians are too laid-back to snip?
> I have been in Hawaii twice - but would hardly agree about it being so
> highly desirable. Nice for a holiday - but to live there? I doubt it is
> paradisical. Too many tourists, too expensive, no changes of seasons. P.
You didn't venture outside the tourist areas, I see.
www.mantra.com/jyotish
"Jacko" <jacko_...@hotmail.com> posted:
Is that a brand of sour grapes?
David
Maharaj <address....@web.site> wrote:
> In article <4aa57a1...@dacha.freeuk.com>, David
> <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
>
> > Nitpicking? I expected better of the world renowned Jai Maharaj.
> Your expectations are your business -- learn to deal with them.
The renown of Jai Maharaj grows with every one of his arrogant and
ill-tempered posts.
> > It does depend on what you mean by "desirable" though, doesn't it.
> > To someone who desires more than anything to visit or live in a
> > place other than Hawaii, then Hawaii is quite obviously not the
> > most desirable etc., etc. If you mean the most visited place or the
> > most lived in place, then you might like to furnish us with figures
> > to support that claim but I should think there are many places on
> > Earth that are visited - and with desire - more. If you mean the
> > amount of money expended by people in visiting and setting up
> > residence in Hawaii, then perhaps somewhere like Mars might have a
> > better claim.
> The Hawaii Visitors Bureau (find it on the web) has been
> publishing for years that Hawaii is the most traveled-to
> destination in the world. Find the claim and challenge
> them if you wish, but I believe it.
Ah! The penny drops. I am arguing against a religious faith. I shall
deist, erm... desist.
--
http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/wfolly/2hs0-0.htm
Hoober Stand: The Southern Door
Jacqui
> Regardless, oops, let's throw a usage curve here . . . irregardless
> of your nitpicking, the fact remains that Hawaii is one of the, if
> not the, most desirable places to visit and in which to live in the world.
And you've just convinced me that I never want to go near it in my life.
Jac
Charles Riggs
I've been there a dozen or so times on business and wouldn't recommend
it, especially Honolulu, to anyone. Waikiki is a very average, almost
nondescript beach, hookers and others out to gouge you abound, the
food is nothing remarkable, there is little of cultural interest, the
stores sell the tackiest of goods, and the place swarms with the most
objectionable type of tourists -- sun-worshippers, hedonists, and
their ilk.
Charles Riggs
Padraig Breathnach
>The Hawaii Visitors Bureau (find it on the web) has been
>publishing for years that Hawaii is the most traveled-to
>destination in the world.
No mention of travelling from Hawaii? Must be full by now.
PB
Skitt
"Jacko" <jacko_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3Xnb7.67948$_b4.5...@news1.cableinet.net...
Ever been to the White Beach on Boracay, in the Philippines? Now, there's a
beach!
http://www.clubpanoly.com.ph/
http://w1.280.telia.com/~u28002269/ph_b3.htm
http://www.boracayisland.org/beach1.html
http://www3.sympatico.ca/niginigi/
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
www.mantra.com/jyotish
Jacqui <Sirlawren...@hotmail.com> posted:
Great! Your absence is Hawaii's gain.
www.mantra.com/jyotish
David <da...@dacha.freeuk.com> posted:
>> The Hawaii Visitors Bureau (find it on the web) has been
>> publishing for years that Hawaii is the most traveled-to
>> destination in the world. Find the claim and challenge
>> them if you wish, but I believe it.
>
> Ah! The penny drops. I am arguing against a religious faith.
> I shall deist, erm... desist.
Huh? I said that I believe HVB's claim. This means
that I do not doubt the figures in their reports.
www.mantra.com/jyotish
chr...@gofree.indigo.ie posted:
> I've been there a dozen or so times on business and wouldn't recommend
> it, especially Honolulu, to anyone. Waikiki is a very average, almost
> nondescript beach, hookers and others out to gouge you abound, the
> food is nothing remarkable, there is little of cultural interest, the
> stores sell the tackiest of goods, and the place swarms with the most
> objectionable type of tourists -- sun-worshippers, hedonists, and
> their ilk. Charles Riggs
I agree with the opinion about Waikiki and (most of) Honolulu.
Waikiki is a tourist area -- why a repeat visitor would go
there is difficult to understand. Honolulu has a few great
residential areas which tourists do not frequent. Most tourists
do not get to see the real beauty of the islands.