Is siting a word

To me, «There is a man sat next to me» sounds like someone else assigned him that seat, as if the complete sentence were «There is a man (who was) sat/seated next to me.» In itself, the sentence sounds odd to my ears.

«There is a man sitting/seated next to me» simply describes his location, to my ears.

I’m not sure which «grammar rule» you’re referring to that says «there is a man sat next to me» should be right.

I have not been able to find out the answer to this issue.
According to the grammar rule, should be right to say «there is a man sat next to me» but we say «there is a man sitting next to me». I have seen that the same happens with verbs such us «miss». Is there any grammar explanation to this pattern? Does anyone know wher I can get the answer?
Thank you!

«Sat» is the past tense of the verb «to sit». If «a man sat next to you», it occured in the past, even if it was just 10 seconds ago.

The verb is not past tense («is» is present tense) in your sentence, «There is a man sitting next to me» which means the same thing as «A man is sitting next to me.» We would not say, «A man is sat next to me,» but «A man sat next to me.»

According to the grammar rule, should be right to say «there is a man sat next to me» but we say «there is a man sitting next to me».

I cannot imagine what grammar rule would justify this usage.

«There is a man sat next to me» is incorrect and ungrammatical. «A man is sat next to me» is equally incorrect. Apparently, these are forms that might be used in some rural English dialects, but for my part I have never heard either one used. In formal circumstances or in writing I would certainly advise that you use neither of these, and instead use the standard and grammatical form, which is «There is a man sitting next to me.»

If you are trying to say that someone has been assigned to sit in that place, you may say «there is a man seated next to me», but «to seat» is different from «to sit.»

But Trinibeens, we aren’t so much concerned here with the past tense as with the past participle, sat, versus the present participle, sitting. Some people in BE use sat as the present participle of to sit.

Simply because some people in BE use it as the present participle, does not mean it is grammatically correct. The OP thought it was gramatically correct, and that was what the question pertained to.

When you say We would not say ‘a man is sat next to me’, who are you speaking for? I promise you it is often said by less well-off people, particularly in the North of England.

I don’t think those in the North of England who use it this way do so because they are less well-off, but more likely because they are less educated. Or do they teach this usage in the schools up there?

Let me take this opportunity to summarize the above posts.

Two two phrases: «there is a man sat next to me» and «there is a man sitting next to me» have a very subtle difference in their meanings.

1) The ‘sat’ in the first phrase is the passive form of ‘sit’, not the past tense.

2) *To sit* is usually intransitive meaning it does not have a passive form.

3) When it’s used as a transitive verb, it means to ‘get (someone) to sit down’, in which case the passive form is ‘sat’.

Therefore, though awkward, the phrase «

there is a man sat next to me» implies «someone has sat a man down in a seat right next to mine», whereas «there is a man sitting next to me» simply expresses a state and it does not indicate whether the man voluntarily chose to sit there by himself or otherwise. All those being said, I personally still prefer «there is a man seated next to me» than «there is a man sat next to me». The latter just seems slightly unnatural to me.

Go into almost any public house in the North of England and you’d think it the standard form.

Go into almost any public house* in the North of England and it is the standard form. For someone to start an anecdote with I was in here last night and there was a bloke sitting next to me … would sound distinctly pretentious or even la-di-da [not a technical term].

*If you can find one.

I don’t think those in the North of England who use it this way do so because they are less well-off, but more likely because they are less educated. Or do they teach this usage in the schools up there?

Well, I don’t know that it’s about being less educated per se. In all likelihood, and as far as I understand it, «be sat» is grammatical in their dialect, and so they learn it the same way other speakers of English would learn «be sitting»: from acquiring the language as infants. In the same way that in a certain African American vernacular, double negatives are grammatical.

As a native speaker of Dutch, I cannot speak to the correctness of my personal grammaticality judgments about English (though I started learning it almost soon enough that you could call me a native speaker, I wasn’t quite young enough). However, I can speak as a former linguistics student. Granted, linguistics is about description, not prescription, so if you wanted to prescribe what is grammatically correct rather than describe native speakers’s judgments, you could do that (as I liked to do prior to learning about linguistics). In that case, you’re probably correct in saying that «be sitting» would be the more commonly accepted syntax.

I don’t agree with the notion that «be sat» in this context would mean that someone else sat the person down there (the causative use of the verb). That would be the necessary interpretation in the common dialect of English, where «is sitting» would be used as the default. However, that does not seem to be the intended meaning of speakers of the dialect whose speakers use «is sat» in this manner.

We certainly need a few native English speakers with near-perfect grammar.

The problem with the view that was or is sat is always wrong, is that it raises as many questions about what is meant by wrong as it answers about use of the expression.

We have to take into account that it’s extremely common in demotic speech. The BNC (British corpus) has over fifty examples like this:

a. I was in this lesson and two or three of my mates were messing about, and I was sat across the other side of the classroom and someone chucked a piece of chalk at the teacher and then started shouting his mouth off.
b. I heard an amazing comment when I was sat in the North East corner of Elland Road for the Crewe game.

These are clearly very energetic and fluent native speakers of English. If you were to tell them that their English was not ‘correct’, I’m not sure that they would think you were making anything other than a social comment.

I think we need another word to describe this use.

ps. it’s interesting that the ngrams bear out that the usage is relatively modern (post 1700) — it’s not found in Shakespeare, for instance. The impression given by the AE contributors to this thread, that it’s not found in AE, is only partly supported by the ngrams, which suggest that it’s far from unknown in AE books, though nothing like as common as in BE ones.

I think we need another word to describe this use.

Colloquial.

Can you cite any authority for your statement or are we to see each other’s toes?

I think the point TT is making is that there is no authority in English to make the absolute statement as to whether something is wrong or not, merely there is opinion on which syntax, grammar, words, and spellings are used acceptably.

Language is always changing, we do not speak like Chaucer or Shakespeare, therefore, at one time, those changes that brought us here must have been considered «wrong» but are now «right.»

The evolution of language is continuous and very democratic: if enough people say one thing, then it is accepted.

What other people say is irrel

e

vant, I was sat is incorrect just

as

2 plus 2 makes 4, there is no debate.

As you please.

I think you’re missing the general point. You are arguing that there is one right way to say things. Language is not math. There is no authoritative agency that says «This is correct English» and «this is incorrect English». We all have a collection of «rules» we were taught, that we absorbed from people around us, that we made up ourselves. Even if they all held true at some moment in time, the language has shifted since then.

Saying that there is one right way to say anything in English is very shaky ground to stand on. («Gotten» is a great example — a word that is proper and standard American English but archaic or colloquial in British English.)

We tend to avoid those kinds of pronouncements here. The longer you’re around here, the more you’ll realize how many things you have taken as fact that are either opinion, misinformation or limited to a particular region, country or variant of English. Even «standard English» is a very fuzzy standard. We have general overlaps in our ideas of what is standard but there is no complete agreement, even on that topic, even by people considered authorities in the language.

Rikstir,
we try to standardise the language for the sake of communication, especially in writing, but the rules have fuzzy edges. There are things that everyone considers right, things that everyone considers wrong and things where there are different opinions. The language evolves this way: yesterday’s mistakes are today’s correct forms and will sound pedantic tomorrow.
English is an international language and is the property of all those who use it. There are differences in use between one country and another and also within the individual countries. This forum is for comparing points of view. In some discussions we give simple explanations to elementary learners, but there are also discussions on a higher level, even initiated by a non-native in some cases. If you think others are giving answers that are too complex, then instead of criticising them just give a simple answer yourself, which however does not mean declaring that you are the only authority on the English language.

As for the notion that southern English is more «correct» than northern, don’t base your ideas on the BBC or the Queen!

PS Crossed with JamesM on many points!

This thread isn’t about «quick» as an adverb. However, it’s been used as one from the 14th century to the present day, including its use by Shakespeare, Milton, Locke, Pope, Dickens, and Tennyson.

You seem to have missed the point made in recent posts. There is no sense in your saying as a claimed point of fact: ‘The reason «I was sat» to mean «I was sitting» is wrong, is because «I was sat» means something completelly different. It means someone picked you up and sat you down.‘ I can agree with you that many English speakers will understand and accept that as a valid point of view. However, there are many thousands, perhaps millions, of native English speakers who will cry «nonsense» because in their everyday language «I was sat» means to them what «I was sitting» means to you. You are no more right than they.

I happened to notice an example of this use of «sat» in a British newpaper today. The Daily Mail may not be the best model for English prose writing, but it does reflect how people talk. The rest of the article seems to be in «correct» standard English.

«Photos on Lawrence’s open Facebook profile capture the couple cutting their wedding cake and also show his pet monkey, believed to be a marmoset, sat in a specially-made wooden shelter in a garden.»

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art…pensive-perfume-pet-monkey.html#ixzz3UeZnK35u

He was on parade with his chin

sticking

out.
He was on parade with his chin

stuck

out.

They both sound OK to me.

I’ve just suggested to bend, Andy.

Here’s a nice example from Rupert Thomson, who comes from Eastbourne: Georgia was bent over the basin, throwing up.

He was on parade with his chin

sticking

out.
He was on parade with his chin

stuck

out.

They both sound OK to me.

And neither of those suggestions appears to be particularly northern to me. I must listen out down here in Devon to see if I can find some locals stood or sat about the place. I know just who to engage in conversation.

Wrong verb, surely, Andy.

How about I was lain on the bed, reading? I’ve not heard that, maybe because of the general lay-lain-laid-confusion.

Perhaps it would have been better never to have gone there.