Was sat - was sitting

[kitten]

I've was taught and always thought that to describe a person sitting on a wall the phrase 'was sat' (eg 'he was sat on the wall') was wrong and that it should be 'he was sitting on the wall'.

 

Apart from any other consideration, 'was sat' in my mind is passive - eg 'the baby was sat on the wall by the mother'.

 

Recently, however, I've seen 'was sat', and similar constructions with other verbs, used many times when it certainly wasn't passive - eg. 'his father was sat at the table, drinking tea'. It now seems so common that maybe it's become accepted? Or am I wrong and was it always acceptable?

 

Kit

[hh5]

was sat - hurts my ears

 

I'm still not use to the removal "of" from the Queens English

[David McLeod]

I've was taught and always thought that to describe a person sitting on a wall the phrase 'was sat' (eg 'he was sat on the wall') was wrong and that it should be 'he was sitting on the wall'.

 

Apart from any other consideration, 'was sat' in my mind is passive - eg 'the baby was sat on the wall by the mother'.

 

Recently, however, I've seen 'was sat', and similar constructions with other verbs, used many times when it certainly wasn't passive - eg. 'his father was sat at the table, drinking tea'. It now seems so common that maybe it's become accepted? Or am I wrong and was it always acceptable?

 

Kit

 

Absolutely unacceptable. Never acceptable.

 

I sit, you sit, he/she/it sits at the table (or on the wall). Yesterday, I sat, you sat, he/she/it sat at the table. At times, I have sat, you have sat, he/she/it has sat at the table.

 

I am seated, you are seated, he/she/it is seated at the table. I was seated...I have been seated, etc.

 

I set the teapot, you set the teapot, he/she/it set the teapot on the table.

 

The mother set (or put, placed) the baby on the wall.

 

I've not seen the error you described, but I do often see the "lay-lie" error. I think the "sit-set" and "lay-lie" errors stem from the same misunderstanding of transitive and intransitive verbs. I don't have a paragraph on "sit-set," but here's what I have on "lay-lie":

 

Lay-lie. Lay (lay, laid, laid, laying) is (almost always) a transitive active verb that requires a direct object. It means, usually

[MikeL]

I don't think "was sat" is ever correct. Surely it should be "the baby was set on the wall by the mother and there he sat."

 

Ask the Queen; it's her English.

[hh5]

I don't think "was sat" is ever correct. Surely it should be "the baby was set on the wall by the mother and there he sat."

 

Ask the Queen; it's her English.

 

Professor Henry Higgins would be funnier to consult especially when he sings

[kitten]

I don't think "was sat" is ever correct. Surely it should be "the baby was set on the wall by the mother and there he sat."

 

Ask the Queen; it's her English.

 

Well, I'm not the Queen but I'll say what I think.

 

I don't think that you can use 'set' as an alternative to 'sat' as they are two completely different verbs.

 

If you just say 'the baby was set on the wall by the mother' it could be placed on its back, or its front or any other position. You could make it clearer and say 'the baby was set on the wall in a sitting position by the mother' or 'the baby was placed on the wall in a sitting position by the mother'. However, that is a bit long-winded.

 

You could say that 'the baby was seated on the wall by the mother' - that gives the same specific information about position and is more concise. Perhaps it is more grammatical than 'the baby was sat on the wall by the mother' but is it as precise in meaning?

 

Until recently I'd rarely heard examples of usage like 'his father was sat at the table drinking tea' and so I've always thought that was wrong. However, I've often heard heard examples of usage like 'the baby was sat on the chair by the mother', so maybe it's just as ungrammatical as the first example, but its wrongness wasn't so obvious to me because I was more accustomed to it.

 

Kit

[hh5]

Until recently I'd rarely heard examples of usage like 'his father was sat at the table drinking tea' and so I've always thought that was wrong. However, I've often heard heard examples of usage like 'the baby was sat on the chair by the mother', so maybe it's just as ungrammatical as the first example, but its wrongness wasn't so obvious to me because I was more accustomed to it.

 

Kit

 

maybe below was the idea?

 

his father had sat at the table

the baby had sat on the chair by the mother

[TalonRider]

The mother sat the baby on the wall, works for me.

 

As an editor, I would question that and suggest something to a author. I think you must also take it in the context of the story. If it is someone speaking and english isn't their native tongue, they might wind up speaking in broken english. Something like this might work with characters in David McLeod's stories. (I'm not suggesting anything here, David.)

 

I've read a story by one author and I'm working with an author who is writing a slightly different version of that same story. It would work for some of the characters in those stories as well. A couple of characters I'm thinking of aren't well educated.

 

It may not be proper, but it does have its uses.

[MikeL]

Now that I think of it, it is rather unsafe for a baby to sit on a wall.

[sat8997]

The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.

 

According to Burchfield, using "sat" as a substitute for the participle "sitting" is an English regionalism, used widely in the north and west of England. It is, however, purely a dialect variation, and ought to be avoided in formal writing.

[David McLeod]

As an editor, I would question that and suggest something to a author. I think you must also take it in the context of the story. If it is someone speaking and english isn't their native tongue, they might wind up speaking in broken english. Something like this might work with characters in David McLeod's stories. (I'm not suggesting anything here, David.)

 

...It may not be proper, but it does have its uses.

 

Actually, he said, actually your point is well taken. Using ungrammatical speech, regionalisms, shibboleths, dialect, slang, etc., can be quite useful in dialogue to create characters and to distinguish one character from the other. And I know most of my characters speak too much alike. It's something I'm working on, and all comments are very welcome.

[hh5]

Actually, he said, actually your point is well taken. Using ungrammatical speech, regionalisms, shibboleths, dialect, slang, etc., can be quite useful in dialogue to create characters and to distinguish one character from the other. And I know most of my characters speak too much alike. It's something I'm working on, and all comments are very welcome.

 

I suppose spell checkers and grammer checkers stop check when using ""

probably not (joke)

 

I guess you have to keep on pretending to be that character and speak from his voice of who he is rather than who you are.

[LongGone]

My head hurts. Stop it.

[David McLeod]

My head hurts. Stop it.

 

An excellent example of simple, or "low" diction.

[TalonRider]

An excellent example of simple, or "low" diction.

Beware of this raccoon, he bites.

[LongGone]

Beware of this raccoon, he bites.

Only when asked nicely.

[darkfoxprime]

"was sat" works *only* when the seating was done *by someone else* - for example, someone "was sat" at a table by the maitr' d.

[MikeL]

"was sat" works *only* when the seating was done *by someone else* - for example, someone "was sat" at a table by the maitr' d.

I think "was seated" sounds better. Someone "was seated" at a table by the maitr' d.

[MikeL]

I don't think "was sat" is ever correct. Surely it should be "the baby was set on the wall by the mother and there he sat."

I don't think that you can use 'set' as an alternative to 'sat' as they are two completely different verbs.

 

If you just say 'the baby was set on the wall by the mother' it could be placed on its back, or its front or any other position. You could make it clearer and say 'the baby was set on the wall in a sitting position by the mother' or 'the baby was placed on the wall in a sitting position by the mother'. However, that is a bit long-winded.

Kit, I think "set" is OK the way I used it. The mother could "set" the baby on the wall in any position as you noted, but the last phrase in my example clarifies that. The baby was set on the wall by the mother and there he sat.

[AFriendlyFace]

One thing I want to know is why this demented lady is leaving her offspring on a wall in the first place?

[David McLeod]

I think "was seated" sounds better. Someone "was seated" at a table by the maitr' d.

 

Agree. Someone is/was/had been/will be "seated" by the maitre d' (if he/she offered the maitre d' a sufficient gratuity or if he/she is on the A list).

 

Kit, I think "set" is OK the way I used it. The mother could "set" the baby on the wall in any position as you noted, but the last phrase in my example clarifies that. The baby was set on the wall by the mother and there he sat.

 

An excellent way of remembering the difference.

 

One thing I want to know is why this demented lady is leaving her offspring on a wall in the first place?

 

She is a frustrated editor, and, like Abraham, was willing to sacrifice her firstborn to a higher cause.

[Meeko]

One thing I want to know is why this demented lady is leaving her offspring on a wall in the first place?

 

Lmfao

 

Kevin I miss you.

[Aeroplane]

I think "was seated" sounds better. Someone "was seated" at a table by the maitr' d.

 

No offensive intended, but thats because youre American .

 

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_...cal_differences .

Sat has a specific example.

 

According to the article, it is informal.. so in my opinion ideal for character's speech because people dont speak in formally correct english all the time. .

[MikeL]

No offensive intended, but thats because youre American .

 

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_...cal_differences .

Sat has a specific example.

 

According to the article, it is informal.. so in my opinion ideal for character's speech because people dont speak in formally correct english all the time. .

No offense taken. It appears that I use "seated" rather than "sat" not because I am an American, but rather because I am not British. The Wikipedia example you cited seems to indicate that:

In BrE the word sat is often colloquially used to cover sat, sitting and seated: I've been sat here waiting for half an hour. The bride's family will be sat on the right-hand side of the church. This construction is not often heard outside the UK. In the 1960s, its use would mark a speaker as coming from the north of England but by the turn of the 21st century this form had spread to the south. Its use often conveys lighthearted informality, when many speakers intentionally use a dialect or colloquial construction they would probably not use in formal written English. This colloquial usage is widely understood by British speakers. Similarly stood can be used instead of standing. To an American, these usages are passive, and may imply that the subject had been involuntarily forced to sit or stand, or directed to hold that location.

The example also indicates "sat" is not used this way in formal written English even by those who use it in speech.

 

"Sat" does not sound correct to me. If a British character uses it in dialogue in a story, that's fine with me. I would expect the author's narrative to not use it.

[David McLeod]

No offensive intended, but thats because youre American .

 

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_...cal_differences .

...it is informal.. so in my opinion ideal for character's speech because people dont speak in formally correct english all the time. .

 

Thanks for the interesting link. There's a lot there for the international audience of this site. You are correct that informal language can be part of a character's diction, and differences in diction are a good way to distinguish between characters. On the otherhand, it's not just American or head waiters. People may be seated by an usher, and are said to be seated in a legislative body when they are installed in such an office.