Word use question...
Apr. 3rd, 2009 04:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
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?
no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 08:45 pm (UTC)I think it's just another of those ungrammatical spoken things.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-03 08:48 pm (UTC)I love colloquialisms, especially when they are new to me.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 09:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 03:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 03:50 pm (UTC)Between the Northern influences and my mother not always having heard stuff correctly in the first place some of my speech patterns are not only not correct for Southern England but not quite correct for Northern England either...
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 05:55 pm (UTC)When I studied Welsh (briefly) as a teen, I had two teachers, married to each other. One was from North Wales, one from South. They used to stop to argue about the 'right' way to say things, which we clueless Canadians thought was hilarious.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 05:59 pm (UTC)He said tom-ah-to, she said tom-ay-to?? I cannot wrap my head around that conversation's Welsh equivalent would sound - almost, but not quite.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 06:25 pm (UTC)