Thread: The difference between 'sat' and 'sitting' explained.

Ok.

I am English and I always have got this one confused, along with a load of other people. The amount of Enlish people who may say this:

"I was sat on the chair when the TV broke"

Now this is probably incorrect. If you were 'sat' on the chair, then this means that a person personally placed you there (like an usher at the theatre may do). What should be written is:

"I was sitting on the chair when the TV broke"

EDIT: Just to add to this - You could say I sat on the chair when the TV broke as this would mean that you yourself sat down as opposed to someone else sitting you down.

Hope that helps anyone who has gotten confused about the difference before - although if you said it, everyone would understand you, and 99.9% of people would not pick you up about it - although my Dad would!

Andy

Originally Posted by andrewsco

Ok.

I am English and I always have got this one confused, along with a load of other people. The amount of Enlish people who may say this:

"I was sat on the chair when the TV broke"

Dude, NOBODY says that. It rings all bells, whistles and inflatable duckies. Even foreigners don't make that mistake!

BTW, shouldn't this be in ESL or English for Russians?

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=571021

It's a Brithish thing, KV

Originally Posted by andrewsco

"I was sat on the chair when the TV broke"

I do not care if this is a British thing or not. It sounds terrible.

What about trainers? In BrE that means sneakers. Canadiens usually say running shoes. Different countries, different words/grammar.

Hope that helps anyone who has gotten confused about the difference before - although if you said it, everyone would understand you, and 99.9% of people would not pick you up about it - although my Dad would!

I think you mean that 99.9% of the British people would understand you if you said "I was sat on the chair".

Originally Posted by ReDSanchous

What about trainers? In BrE that means sneakers. Canadiens usually say running shoes. Different countries, different words/grammar.

Hope that helps anyone who has gotten confused about the difference before - although if you said it, everyone would understand you, and 99.9% of people would not pick you up about it - although my Dad would!

I think you mean that 99.9% of the British people would understand you if you said "I was sat on the chair".

No, all English speakers would understand it. It is obvious what the person is saying. But most would also recognise that it is gramatically incorrect.

Where I am from (Essex in England), loads of (poor stupid) people say things like "I see you yesterday". They shouldn't let people like that breed.

I didn't say that only the British people would understand it. I remember Americans and the British arguing over whether it is possible to say: I haven't seen him since two months ago. Most of them came to the conclusion that it was grammatically correct though none of them would say so.

Originally Posted by ReDSanchous

I didn't say that only the British people would understand it. I remember Americans and the British arguing over whether it is possible to say: I haven't seen him since two months ago. Most of them came to the conclusion that it was grammatically correct though none of them would say so.

what is exactly the problem with that phrase, btw?
there are some other cases in other languages when commonplace expressions are considered ungrammatical; imo it's just the case of the norms lagging behind the language. phrases like "Ms. Jones and me" are another example...
in russian we have this too; for ex. the word "netu" is a case of this...

BTW, a question to the native English speakers: does a phrase "I'm going there tomorrow" sound weird or ungrammatical to any of you?

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/sh...ghlight=months
You can read the whole discussion if you want. It's pretty long so it'll take me long to tell you it.

Please explain "netu" to me. It drives me crazy when I hear it because my dictionary says it is colloq. for "nyet" but people seem to use it a negative response in place of a lot of words and phrases.
i.e. "Who was at the door?" "Netu."
"What did you buy at the store?" "Netu."

Your sentences are incorrect. I have never heard anyone say so. I would say:
"Who was at the door?" "Nikto" (or Nikavo)
"What did you buy at the store?" "Nichego"

I know the sentences have incorrect answers and that is what confuses me. It seems "netu" is popping up in all sorts of inappropriate places. I frequently hear it used this way and am wondering if this is some sort of "new slang" or maybe a regional (Moscow) thing?

Originally Posted by ReDSanchous

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/sh...ghlight=months
You can read the whole discussion if you want. It's pretty long so it'll take me long to tell you it.

it looks like the ultimate in nitpicking to me. Normal, educated people do speak like that, and that's all that matters, imo. Plus, "two months ago" is quite a definite point in time, no less definite than Christmas.

Originally Posted by JB

I know the sentences have incorrect answers and that is what confuses me. It seems "netu" is popping up in all sorts of inappropriate places. I frequently hear it used this way and am wondering if this is some sort of "new slang" or maybe a regional (Moscow) thing?

It's definitely not a Moscow thing.
But it's colloquial for "No, there is/are none", or the like. Like, "u tebja est' den'gi? -- Netu" ("do you have any money? -- No, I don't (have any)"). As opposed to the (supposedly more literate) "u tebja est' den'gi? -- Net" (--"No."), which in this case is just a negative answer to the question and sounds a bit more abrupt to me. Sometimes its just interchangeable without any changes in meaning, e.g. "esli u vas netu doma" (if you don't have a home).
So it refers to the rejection of existence (and other things that are expressed through expressions of existence in Russian, like possession as in this example).

BTW, do you have any comments on my "I'm going there tomorrow" phrase by any chance?

"I'm going there tomorrow." Is not incorrect in American speech, but may get a red mark from an English teacher if it appeared on a written assignment (present and future tense used inappropliately together). But it is common to see such usage in newspapers and TV because these are presented in the everyday language of the public.

Originally Posted by JB

"I'm going there tomorrow." Is not incorrect in American speech, but may get a red mark from an English teacher if it appeared on a written assignment (present and future tense used inappropliately together). But it is common to see such usage in newspapers and TV because these are presented in the everyday language of the public.

well, that's what I always thought, but I was corrected once so I started having doubts. Probably the person was just nitpicking.
I actually think I did see this even in one of my old English language textbooks.

it looks like the ultimate in nitpicking to me. Normal, educated people do speak like that, and that's all that matters, imo. Plus, "two months ago" is quite a definite point in time, no less definite than Christmas.

I can't get what you mean. Can you clarify your claim?

Originally Posted by ReDSanchous

it looks like the ultimate in nitpicking to me. Normal, educated people do speak like that, and that's all that matters, imo. Plus, "two months ago" is quite a definite point in time, no less definite than Christmas.

I can't get what you mean. Can you clarify your claim?

I simply claim that this phrase is just fine, and there are no problems with it except in the mind of a few select grammaticians

Well, to be honest, I prefer native speakers' answers. If you haven't got the time to read the whole discussion or at least part of it to get what makes English speakers think this sentence is not grammatical, you then will always think it's entirely correct. That's my point.
Furthermore, I'd say that sentence of yours was correct too. At least, for the British In AmE I'd say I'm going to go there tomorrow.
I think we should move this thread to "English for Russians".

Originally Posted by ReDSanchous

Well, to be honest, I prefer native speakers' answers. If you haven't got the time to read the whole discussion or at least part of it to get what makes English speakers think this sentence is not grammatical, you then will always think it's entirely correct. That's my point.
Furthermore, I'd say that sentence of yours was correct too. At least, for the British In AmE I'd say I'm going to go there tomorrow.
I think we should move this thread to "English for Russians".

My understanding was that there were native speakers on the both sides of the issue in that thread; if that is not the case I'll have to retract my words.

btw I think "I'm going to go..." is 100% formal and correct by any standard in any variety of English; without "to go" it's probably colloquial but still fine to use, imo.