Word use question...

[fajrdrako]

When I read Torchwood: Almost Perfect by James Goss, I noticed that he had a way of using the verb 'to sit' that was new to me. Instead of saying "he sat" or "he was sitting" or even "he sat down", he'd say, "he was sat". Sounds passive to me, but clearly wasn't meant to be. There was no agent but the subject doing the sitting.

I've noticed this several times since, always in a British context. Just now I heard someone say, "you must have been sat in the row behind me" instead of (as I would say) "you must have sat".

Could someone explain to me how this works? Is it a new British expression?

Comments

[auriaephiala.livejournal.com]

It sounds dreadful -- just illiterate.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

First time I saw it, I thought it was a typo, or just an error. But I've seen it now in enough different places (all British) to realize it's - well, something. A dialect? A regionalism? Something people are saying. Still haven't figured it out.

[aeron-lanart.livejournal.com]

Not new, but I would say definitely British as it's an expression I've used for years. Not the sort of thing I would expect in a novel though.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Ah - just new to me! Does it mean the same as 'he sat', or is there some nuance I don't know?

[aeron-lanart.livejournal.com]

'I was sat right behind you' is the sort of thing I might say, though if I *wrote* it I would use 'I was sitting'. I'm beginning to think it might be a northern thing as I can't recall any of my southern friends actually using it in speech, but I've heard lots of my northern friends say it.

I think it's just another of those ungrammatical spoken things.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

It might well be northern. Much as I love the north of England, I've never (sadly) spent much time there, not enough to know phrases like that.

I love colloquialisms, especially when they are new to me.

[mad-jaks.livejournal.com]

I just told her I'd say it (and my kids would say it too) so maybe it is my Northern roots showing :D

[seanchaidh.livejournal.com]

It does sound passive, but what might be in an active verb phrase: "The waiter sat him at the table near the door."

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I tried to make it mean that, but no. No waiters, no other possibility in the context except people just... sitting. On their own. Not being helped by waiters or ushers or anything.

[trialia]

It's not passive.

[trialia]

It's rather an old one, actually. Tends to be regional dialect; I hear it more here in Manchester than I've ever heard it in London, but I rarely see it written.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Ah, thank you. If I've heard it before, I never noticed. Not even when I lived there... but I'm sure there's a lot I missed, or have forgotten.

Does "he was sat" mean the same as "he sat"?

[trialia]

It's pretty commonly used still; isn't new. I've heard my dad say it, often and oft.

No... "he was sat" means "he was sitting", usually present tense third person.

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

Dialect. I've heard it in several areas.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Thanks for explaining - I somehow missed it when I lived in London. There was so much for the ear to try to catch and understand.

[gillo]

It's common in colloquial use amongst the not terribly literate or sophisticated. It's shameful that it got past editors.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Maybe they thought it gave the story a certain flavour? The avoidance of the usage in written form is probably why I've never noticed it before.

[bendybendy.livejournal.com]

Regional is not the same as illiterate or unsophisticated. It's regional.

I'll just take my Mancunian speech patterns and finish typing my PhD.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

As the thread says it's regional, I'm wondering if the reason it made it into print is simply because it's a colloquialism that "seemed" right. For instance, like most PA natives, I drop the infinitive "to be." The lawn simply "needs mowed." And while I *usually* catch it when I'm writing, if I'm editing I tend to bleep right over the mistake because, as far as I'm concerned, it is correct.

Either that, or it's been accepted somewhere higher up, like "cos" for "'cause." I notice "cos" everywhere in British writing; somewhere along the line, the style guide obviously changed to accept it.

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

I've heard about that PA dialect, though haven't heard it in person. I wonder if it's from the German influence?

Hmm... yes, I don't see 'cos' all that often, but when I do, it's in British print. Or like 'alright' being more or less accepted in some circles now while it still looks terrible to me.

I know there are things I saw that only Canadians say, but I never know what, since to me it just sounds normal.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

though haven't heard it in person

Talk to me sometime. :> It probably is the Germanic influence; get me very tired and distracted and sometimes I do horrible things to English grammar of the "throw Papa down the stairs his hat" variety.

I can live with "alright" but if "should of" ever becomes accepted I think I'll have to kill myself.

[mad-jaks.livejournal.com]

you must have been sat in the row behind me
I'd say that or "you must have been 'seated'" it's not new...

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

See - I love asking these questions because I love learning these things.

[aranellaurelote.livejournal.com]

I think it may be a Mancunian thing - which makes me happy that I say it because I thought all my colloquialisms had been driven out of me!
I would use it in the context of; 'he was sat next to me/at the table/outside' - but only with 's/he' and 'sat'.... interesting :D

[fajrdrako.livejournal.com]

Yes, interesting indeed. Thanks for explaining!

Neither Wikipedia nor IMDb mentions where James Goss is from. Hmm.