Page 4 | I was sat…

TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross · 2025-11-22T16:29:15+00:00

Just started a book on my Kindle - fortunately a free book - and the reporter was stood on the street corner; the protagonist was sat on her sofa… One of my pet hates, so much so that I don’t know if I can finish the novel 😂

Original poster

TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross · 01/12/2025 12:59

Did it say on the cover that it was written in the particular dialect you would call standard English then? No. I can tell that you’re not a big reader but books don’t tend to do that.

Or do you check the geographic or ethnic origin of the author first before you start reading, in case there might be something you don't like No, because that’s not going to tell me whether, in a novel written in Standard English, their grammar is going to be accurate according to the rules of that format 🙄

OP posts:

RitaIncognita · 01/12/2025 13:18

twiddleit · 01/12/2025 12:27

At least it’s not ‘myself and my wife’ which was what King Charles said in his first Christmas message. 🙄

Show quote history

He actually said "my wife and myself." Still objectionable I grant you, but not quite so bad as if he had put "myself" first.

thecatneuterer · 01/12/2025 14:25

Ygfrhj · 28/11/2025 19:02

It's not a mistake though, it's just different. Yes, at various points people decided to write down how their community spoke English and call it "standard". There's nothing objectively better about those types of English.

Your example is not really comparable. A comparable and quite interesting example might be African American "I be sitting". African American English is often said to have more ways to distinguish verbal aspect than "standard" English, one of which is this construction with "be" that indicates a habitual action. Speakers often get told they're wrong or making mistakes when they use these constructions. Obviously there are more systematic and complex differences than a few northerners saying "I was sat/stood". But it's similar in that something grammatically correct and highly productive in one community, is not accepted by another community.

Show quote history

It is a mistake though. Yes a lot of people say it, but it's not regional. It's found in all regions - generally among the less well educated, but it's spreading. I'm from Yorkshire. I never came across that construction at all growing up.

Yes you can argue that language evolves and we should be fine with that. And to an extent I agree with you, but currently it's still incorrect in standard English grammar.

And my examples are entirely relevant as they are using the same construction - subject+simple past of verb to be+simple past, as opposed to the correct subject+simple past of verb to be + present participle.

So examples of the former are I was drew a picture. I was ate my dinner. I was sat on a wall.

Examples of the latter are I was drawing, I was eating, I was sitting.

newnamehereonceagain · 01/12/2025 17:19

People aren’t taught parsing any more. (I went to a very old fashioned school where elderly ladies did teach us it.)

Another reason for demanding accurate grammar in English is that it makes learning a foreign language much easier.

It’s almost impossible for poor speakers of English to learn correct eg French, and this keeps back potentially wonderful linguists because their English grammar is woeful.

It helps social mobility to teach basic grammar and spelling to everyone. I think this
a laudable aim.

upinaballoon · 01/12/2025 17:58

newnamehereonceagain · 01/12/2025 17:19

People aren’t taught parsing any more. (I went to a very old fashioned school where elderly ladies did teach us it.)

Another reason for demanding accurate grammar in English is that it makes learning a foreign language much easier.

It’s almost impossible for poor speakers of English to learn correct eg French, and this keeps back potentially wonderful linguists because their English grammar is woeful.

It helps social mobility to teach basic grammar and spelling to everyone. I think this
a laudable aim.

I seem to remember having to parse sentences. What was the part before the predicate? Am I on the right lines.? Subject?

I was brought up to speak English grammatically, but at age 10 I hadn't met terminology, for instance, the 'third person singular'. Then I learned Latin and French, and I understood more about grammar. I have said on these threads that it wouldn't hurt for children in British schools to conjugate the tenses of the verb 'to be'. Well, what a silly old fuddy-duddy I am.

Ygfrhj · 02/12/2025 11:30

thecatneuterer · 01/12/2025 14:25

It is a mistake though. Yes a lot of people say it, but it's not regional. It's found in all regions - generally among the less well educated, but it's spreading. I'm from Yorkshire. I never came across that construction at all growing up.

Yes you can argue that language evolves and we should be fine with that. And to an extent I agree with you, but currently it's still incorrect in standard English grammar.

And my examples are entirely relevant as they are using the same construction - subject+simple past of verb to be+simple past, as opposed to the correct subject+simple past of verb to be + present participle.

So examples of the former are I was drew a picture. I was ate my dinner. I was sat on a wall.

Examples of the latter are I was drawing, I was eating, I was sitting.

Show quote history

I said your example wasn't comparable because "I was sat" is productive and grammatical for many speakers of English. The examples you gave are made up and I would guess probably aren't meaningful in any dialect.

It's not really relevant how you parse it in your version of English, because we already know that for you it's not grammatical.

The question is more around linguistic prescriptivism and bias, and whether language diversity is more important than conformity (obviously I think it is!)

dailyconniptions · 02/12/2025 11:41

AlexaStopAlexaNo · 22/11/2025 16:30

I’d of cried if I had of read that!!

Please...just don't... This perpetuates the shit.

thecatneuterer · 02/12/2025 11:50

Ygfrhj · 02/12/2025 11:30

I said your example wasn't comparable because "I was sat" is productive and grammatical for many speakers of English. The examples you gave are made up and I would guess probably aren't meaningful in any dialect.

It's not really relevant how you parse it in your version of English, because we already know that for you it's not grammatical.

The question is more around linguistic prescriptivism and bias, and whether language diversity is more important than conformity (obviously I think it is!)

Show quote history

Basically what you're saying is that it's such a common grammatical error that it's become accepted as correct by a lot of people. That is true. But it still doesn't make it correct.

As I said, I know language evolves, and I understand the argument for just accepting it. But it is currently still an error in standard English, and I wouldn't expect to see it written in a book or serious article or such like, unless it was quoting direct speech.

Ygfrhj · 02/12/2025 14:22

thecatneuterer · 02/12/2025 11:50

Basically what you're saying is that it's such a common grammatical error that it's become accepted as correct by a lot of people. That is true. But it still doesn't make it correct.

As I said, I know language evolves, and I understand the argument for just accepting it. But it is currently still an error in standard English, and I wouldn't expect to see it written in a book or serious article or such like, unless it was quoting direct speech.

Show quote history

That's not quite what I'm saying. I don't know if this originated as a mistake of some kind (in the way that eg an apron was once a napron) or not. My guess would be not, because it's systematic. Either way it's not a mistake or an error now, it just sounds like one to you.

It's also not really about language evolving because this usage has been around for centuries. It's about variation and why some people's language is seen as wrong. Granted a sociolinguist would say variation is evolution.

Which makes the point a previous poster made, about poorly educated people using it, particularly ignorant. Non-standard language is usually non-standard precisely because disadvantaged people use it, not the other way around.

dailyconniptions · 02/12/2025 14:25

It's hideous and incorrect. I'm sick of seeing it and hearing it. I'm sick of people defending its use.

thecatneuterer · 02/12/2025 16:27

Ygfrhj · 02/12/2025 14:22

That's not quite what I'm saying. I don't know if this originated as a mistake of some kind (in the way that eg an apron was once a napron) or not. My guess would be not, because it's systematic. Either way it's not a mistake or an error now, it just sounds like one to you.

It's also not really about language evolving because this usage has been around for centuries. It's about variation and why some people's language is seen as wrong. Granted a sociolinguist would say variation is evolution.

Which makes the point a previous poster made, about poorly educated people using it, particularly ignorant. Non-standard language is usually non-standard precisely because disadvantaged people use it, not the other way around.

Show quote history

We are never going to agree. It is mistake as it's not following standard English grammar rules. Yes it's very common and is understood everywhere, but it's still incorrect. I wouldn't expect to see it anywhere in formal written English. Surely you wouldn't use it in a formal piece of writing?

I've had enough of this now.