Gotten

[WinniePig]

I’ve noticed many Americans using the term “gotten” and assumed it’s American English. Fine. But it’s not a word I would associate with good grammar on this side of the pond. Anyway, I’ve read a number of threads on here recently where the OP has written “gotten” in their original post (and each time I see it I shudder). Even worse…the dodgy verb crops up in this news article on the BBC (third para from end). The BBC (holds head in hands).

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-60789542

AIBU to despair at how this horrible little verb is infecting the English language…

[quote OchonAgusOchonOh]@PAFMO - so does Scotland not have their own version of English? I thought they did but being neither Scottish (or British for that matter) nor a linguist, there is a reasonable likelihood of me being wrong

However, posters were referring to UK English rather than British English. If they had said British English I would not have assumed their attitude was so insular as it is a normal term that I'm familiar with. However, I am not clear on how it is defined. It definitely excludes Hiberno-english as that is a recognised variant of English but beyond that I don't know.

Surely if British English is the English used in Britain then any of the regional variants are part of British English? Lots of British posters have stated that gotten is normal in their dialect do surely then it is part of British English?[/quote]
I'm not sure tbh.

British English is the linguistic term, "UK English" may be being used as a synonym for that. Scottish English would come under the regional variations (as would Hiberno and Welsh) which, in turn would ripple outwards to include variations of all of those.

British posters saying "gotten" is part of their regional dialect find no opposition from me.

YABU - it’s just an archaic past tense form of the verb that died out in the 19th but stayed in the US and it’s now reappearing again. I would never use it but it’s becoming prevalent again. If language never changed we’d still be using it.

@Musmerian

YABU - it’s just an archaic past tense form of the verb that died out in the 19th but stayed in the US and it’s now reappearing again. I would never use it but it’s becoming prevalent again. If language never changed we’d still be using it.

It didn't die out everywhere in the UK.

It's fairly annoying that people insist it did.

I think I'm going to start being completely dismissive of anything that is specifically English, acting like it doesn't exist. I mean, if it's fine to do that for Northern Ireland and Scotland...

@PAFMO - Scottish English would come under the regional variations (as would Hiberno and Welsh)

Given that Ireland is an independent country, Hiberno-english is most definitely not a regional variant of British English. Even SIRI knows that. The fact it is spoken by some in a part of the UK does complicate things but that is to do with a history of colonialism that we really shouldn't get in to here. So I guess the question is does British English refer to English spoken in Britain or in the UK? Second question then us does British english include all variants of English spoken in Britain (or the UK)?

I knew you said you're not sure so I'm not targeting the questions at you specifically but rather putting them out there as general questions.

I always fine it bizarre when people are offended by the evolution of language. Language has been evolving since talking began- the English we consider correct now is very different from English a few hundred years ago.

I just questioned the use of Hiberno-English as a subset of British English too, Ochon. I looked up British English in Wikipedia* and, lo and behold, Hiberno-English is listed as one of the standard forms, as well as RP and Standard Scottish English. Hmm, a bit like the linguistic version of the British Isles conundrum
Whatever its classification, we can agree that Hiberno-English is certainly based on British English, though it's heavily influenced by the Irish language too. Hiberno-English is also spoken in NI, of course.

• Wikipedia is not the best source, I know. The article seemed to use Great Britain and the UK synonymously too, which didn't help at all.

@LizzieAnt

I just questioned the use of Hiberno-English as a subset of British English too, Ochon. I looked up British English in Wikipedia* and, lo and behold, Hiberno-English is listed as one of the standard forms, as well as RP and Standard Scottish English. Hmm, a bit like the linguistic version of the British Isles conundrum Whatever its classification, we can agree that Hiberno-English is certainly based on British English, though it's heavily influenced by the Irish language too. Hiberno-English is also spoken in NI, of course.

• Wikipedia is not the best source, I know. The article seemed to use Great Britain and the UK synonymously too, which didn't help at all.

Whereas this wikipedia page refers to it a separate to british english.

And that is why I tell my students that wikipedia is not a valid source to use as a reference . Problem is any page can be edited by anyone.

Wikipedia requires sources though and Bibliographies so it's not like anyone can edit it and that edit stands. An edit will be reversed if there is no reference to back it up.

YANBU.

There are so many commonly used words and sayings that make my left eye twitch.

[quote OchonAgusOchonOh]**@PAFMO* - Scottish English would come under the regional variations (as would Hiberno and Welsh)*

Given that Ireland is an independent country, Hiberno-english is most definitely not a regional variant of British English. Even SIRI knows that. The fact it is spoken by some in a part of the UK does complicate things but that is to do with a history of colonialism that we really shouldn't get in to here. So I guess the question is does British English refer to English spoken in Britain or in the UK? Second question then us does British english include all variants of English spoken in Britain (or the UK)?

I knew you said you're not sure so I'm not targeting the questions at you specifically but rather putting them out there as general questions.[/quote]
True. Though maybe it's considered British as in British Isles (geographical designation as opposed to political) I don't know though.

I can't remember the name of the linguist who devised it, but there's a map of circles and ripples showing the various Englishes and subsets. It starts out as 3 main ones. It will be interesting to see where that puts Hiberno. I'll see if I can find it.

@Migrainesbythedozen

Wikipedia requires sources though and Bibliographies so it's not like anyone can edit it and that edit stands. An edit will be reversed if there is no reference to back it up.

Only if someone else re-edits it to correct it. We have the classic example there of LizziAnt's page saying one thing and mine saying another about the same topic.

There are some pages the administrators keep an eye on and don't allow direct editing but most stuff isn't monitored and is a free for all.

Having had a look at LizziAnt's page, it lacks credibility from the first paragraph on. Ireland is referred to as part of the UK - surprised nobody has corrected that. Ulster English is referred to in the text but Hiberno-English is used in the sidebar suggesting these were written by different people. In fact, if you look at the history, you can see Hiberno-English was replaced with Ulster english in the text in 2017. In 2008, someone corrected the statement that british english is spoken in Ireland to say Hiberno English is spoken in Ireland. A correction in 2008 (correcting mistaken interpretation of the OED definition. Ireland follows British spellings etc. but cite does not support odd contention that British English encompasses Hiberno-English) indicates the previous entry is misrepresenting a source document by claiming british english is spoken in Ireland.

So all in all, wikipedia is as reliable as the oul fella in the corner of the pub rambling on about his pet topic.

@PAFMO - hough maybe it's considered British as in British Isles (geographical designation as opposed to political) I don't know though.

Ouch. That's just as bad. The term "British Isles" is contentious. All documents drawn up between the UK and Irish governments refer to "these islands".

I can't remember the name of the linguist who devised it, but there's a map of circles and ripples showing the various Englishes and subsets. It starts out as 3 main ones. It will be interesting to see where that puts Hiberno. I'll see if I can find it.

Sounds interesting. Of course the background of the linguist needs to be considered...

I agree with you really Ochon. I find Wikipedia very useful, but never fully trust it. I have to say I didn't read that article as closely as you did either.

In my own head, Hiberno-English is set apart from British English, perhaps with an overlap of the Northern Irish dialects. I'm no linguist though.

@LizzieAnt

I agree with you really Ochon. I find Wikipedia very useful, but never fully trust it. I have to say I didn't read that article as closely as you did either.

In my own head, Hiberno-English is set apart from British English, perhaps with an overlap of the Northern Irish dialects. I'm no linguist though.

To be honest, I didn't read it terribly closely either . The first paragraph, the sidebar and a quick search through the history was enough.

Think of it as being Scottish, much nicer than the identical American version😁

[quote OchonAgusOchonOh]**@PAFMO* - hough maybe it's considered British as in British Isles (geographical designation as opposed to political) I don't know though.*

Ouch. That's just as bad. The term "British Isles" is contentious. All documents drawn up between the UK and Irish governments refer to "these islands".

I can't remember the name of the linguist who devised it, but there's a map of circles and ripples showing the various Englishes and subsets. It starts out as 3 main ones. It will be interesting to see where that puts Hiberno. I'll see if I can find it.

Sounds interesting. Of course the background of the linguist needs to be considered...[/quote]
I've no skin in the game. I'm in southern Europe.

It might well have been in use here centuries ago. Whatever. It fell out of use for a few hundred years, and adopting it from the US sounds much too try-hard. It has an ugly sound. I much prefer 'has got'.

@PAFMO - I've no skin in the game. I'm in southern Europe.

Well, now you know that we're a bit touchy about being lumped in with Britain or the UK.

That said, I was actually being slightly serious about the background of the linguist being important as there is often significant ignorance about the distinctions between these islands and where they lie politically, culturally etc. and a knowledge of linguistics could be presented incorrectly through a culturally/politically ignorant lens.

Oh look, yet another thread about how those Americans are infiltrating the sacred English language. It's not like there are already dozens of them.

All started by people who presumably don't complain about the words we use from other languages.

I've noticed lately, that American's also use the word "Conversate", as in "we were having a conversation". That's new!

Don't get me started on the over use of the word LIKE.

Why did you put an apostrophe in 'American's'? Honestly, I am really sick and tired of hypocritical, illiterate fuckwits criticising perfectly acceptable language.

[quote Migrainesbythedozen]**@WinniePig* You are ill-informed. Gotten is the original British English. It pre-dates* American usage. Americans are, hence, correct to use it, and British/UK people should be using it too. You should have researched before writing your thread.[/quote]
This is wrong. Americans have retained "gotten" correctly in the past tense.

Brits who have suddenly started to use it generally do so wrongly in the present tense.

Gotten has always indicated a past tense in English and still does in words such as "forgotten" and "begotten".

"Got" is simply "gotten" without its suffix because it no longer needs the suffix to be understood. Thats what western European languages tend to do - they are full of unpronounced letters.

We no longer speak the same way as in Shakespeare's time or earlier in many ways, including no longer using gotten in its original past tense. We don't pronounce the "e"s on the end of words, for one thing...and we have lost rhoticity in nearly all of England (though not in Scotland).

This is wrong. Americans have retained "gotten" correctly in the past tense. Brits who have suddenly started to use it generally do so wrongly in the present tense. Gotten has always indicated a past tense in English and still does in words such as "forgotten" and "begotten". "Got" is simply "gotten" without its suffix because it no longer needs the suffix to be understood. Thats what western European languages tend to do - they are full of unpronounced letters.

As a language teacher I have to say that this is all utter bollocks.

@Fairislefandango

This is wrong. Americans have retained "gotten" correctly in the past tense. Brits who have suddenly started to use it generally do so wrongly in the present tense. Gotten has always indicated a past tense in English and still does in words such as "forgotten" and "begotten". "Got" is simply "gotten" without its suffix because it no longer needs the suffix to be understood. Thats what western European languages tend to do - they are full of unpronounced letters.

As a language teacher I have to say that this is all utter bollocks.

Which language do you teach? This is pretty standard linguistic theory.

Would you like to elaborate on why you disagree and what you think is correct?

Brits who have suddenly started to use it generally do so wrongly in the present tense.

Could you elaborate on this please SucculentChalice? I can't imagine how it's being used incorrectly.

@SucculentChalice That is absolutely not true at all. Gotten is current tense, as well as past tense.