Why do the Brits get it wrong all the time?

e.g: I was sat on the bus waiting for it to leave and it exploded. Wrong. I am no teacher but isn't that past perfect or something and should be "I was sitting on the bus..."???

Annoys me every time i hear it.

Why do the Brits get it wrong all the time?

e.g: I was sat on the bus waiting for it to leave and it exploded. Wrong. I am no teacher but isn't that past perfect or something and should be "I was sitting on the bus..."???

Annoys me every time i hear it.

Brits ??

Further research required me thinks

Annoys me every time i hear it.

Then don't listen!

Wait a sec...

BRITS?

Brits on a bus?

In Thailand?

There must something seriously wrong here...

What is wrong with it? Nothing, it is past simple passive - the passive voice is 'to be + past participle'

Of course it's wrong. I completely agree with Doza. And it is British people who use the term incorrectly. But British people who have not been properly educated.

was sitting

had sat

had sat - past perfect passive

was sat - past simple passive

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/tenses.htm - one of many sources

sorry ................

i'm getting old

No need for apologies, just put the cheque in the post

Actually "was sat" in this case is not passive voice as the person sitting is the subject in the sentence not the object. The chair was sat on, would be passive voice as we are talking about the object.

It is better English to use the present participle sitting rather than sat with the verb 'to be', although I don't think you can say that something used colloquially that often is actually wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first thing I'd correct a Thai speaker for doing and is considerably better than I sit but.

i KNEW it didn't sound right ....................................

Why do the Brits get it wrong all the time?

e.g: I was sat on the bus waiting for it to leave and it exploded. Wrong. I am no teacher but isn't that past perfect or something and should be "I was sitting on the bus..."???

Annoys me every time i hear it.

Actually in England we dont use the term e.g: I was sat on the bus waiting for it leave and it exploded.

More likely a scenario is this example. e.g: I was shat on, on the bus the other day as someones bowels exploded

KD

I suspect that "I was sat on the bus" is acceptable Britspeak (though perhaps not quite proper). It sounds incorrect in American ears simply because we just don't say it that way. I think the British term is a shortened version of "I was sat down onto the bus seat by meself, whenst this bloke said to me....."

As Mr. Hippo says, it's meant as passive mood, not active mood.

Actually the word some of you are searching for is "seated".

"Was sat" is not correct. "Was seated" is.

However English is used and abused globally now , innit ?

And the sentence as quoted is perfectly understandable.

"I sit bus I wait and KABOOM" is equally understandable and uses less letters.

Firstly, it's not passive mood it's just not, as you say, proper English. Its usage, as I mentioned earlier, is outlined in the COED. I have definitely used it, but it's more in the context of telling a story down the pub. So I was sat on the bus, right. And this right chav tells me he wants to kick me 'ead in, innit?

Secondly, there's no such thing as passive mood, it's passive voice.

"To sit [object]" usually indicates that the object has been placed somewhere (a shortening, perhaps, of "to situate"). So the usage is technically incorrect, but might be colloquially accurate, somewhere.

Mates, 'e's right; I'm voiceless. As for whether it's the Queen's English, perhaps Charles Windsor can advise us about that, down at the pub.

It is amusing to see Americans practicing their pseudo-slang Britspeak

however Prince Charles the horse lover and all his ilk are not a good

guide to English as she is spoke. Their locution became fixed forever

whilst performing fellatio at Eton.

Prince Charles didn't go to Eton, he went to Gordonstoun.

Well we are about as clear as mud but it just don't sound right, do it?!

Thanks lads...

Sit & situate although appear to be from the same root are not.

Where were you when the crash happened? Is it a) I was sat on the bus or I was sitting on the bus? If you answered that would have been correct if the question was Where were you doing when the crash happened? If you asked me the same question, you may have got as an answer 'I was sat sitting on the bus'. Is that correct? Of course not but we have used it in my family for generations!

Doza - if you feel that it does not sound right then don't use it. English is a living language and sometimes bad construction becomes acceptable through common usage. I see you have used 'do it' in place of 'does it', why?

I was very clear on the matter I thought.

It's really not a big deal. Every English speaking country uses the language differently and there are hundreds of things that people from other countries say that I don't but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I don't like it when Americans use the past simple instead of the present perfect, but it's not wrong.

I never correct American English to British and I try to teach both if it's necessary. I've found that a lot of people have actually a very limited knowledge on the subject yet have very strong opinions. There is much more to British/American English than spelling colour and pronouncing our A's differently.

I work with an American and when we've looked at books on the subjects frequently he's used the British or I've used the American.

Actually the word some of you are searching for is "seated".

"Was sat" is not correct. "Was seated" is.

As there is little difference between the transitive verbs 'sit' and 'seat', the difference is very small and the issue of correctness is not based on logic. The complete verb in this case is 'was' - 'sat on the bus' is the complement. (The old causative 'set' is no longer associated with 'sit'.)

There is a similar construct based on transitive 'stand' - 'We were stood in line waiting for the counter to open when the busker came along.'

'We were stood

don't sound right , again ................................

Why do the Brits get it wrong all the time?

e.g: I was sat on the bus waiting for it to leave and it exploded. Wrong. I am no teacher but isn't that past perfect or something and should be "I was sitting on the bus..."???

Annoys me every time i hear it.

Hi ya all. How ya doin?

Translation

Hello everyone. Are keeping fit? How far have you got with your task? Are you having a nice day etc.,

The trash is in the trunk. Who's trunk? The elephant's trunk of course!

Translation

The rubbish is in the boot of the car.

The one that really makes me laugh tho' is when an American is annoyed with someone they always say,[i] Have a nice day.[/i]

I can't write what a lot of us British people say on this forum so sorry no translation.

Brits - British

Yanks - Americans

It annoys me everytime too, but I'm only British!

'I was sat on the bus' is perfectly acceptable British English., though possibly a tad informal. How you would parse it is not that relevant, but it is certainly not a passive, and just as certainly "I was seated' is not an alternative.

I would parse the phrase as subject (I)/copula (was)/ adverbial (on the bus).

Equivalent phrases are

I was pissed as a newt.

I was really tired

I was stuck in a traffic jam.

If people do want to complain about other's English they would do well to get it correct.

It's not perfectly acceptable it's just in common usage (in British English). Hence the need to outline the fact in the Consise Oxford English Dictionary.

Quote:

"The use of the past participle stood with the verb 'to be', as in we were stood in a line for hours, is not acceptable in standard English. The present participle standing should be used instead. See also usage at sit."

"It is good English to use the present participle sitting rather than the past participle sat with the verb 'to be': we were sitting there for hours rather than we were sat there for hours."

I do think it would be interesting though to start a similar thread of annoying uses of English from other countries. Saying sat instead of sitting can't be anyway near as annoying as saying kinda or like every other word, or ending every sentence with an upward inflection.

It's theraputic to argue these things about once a year. May I bring up my perennial point that in North America, "I am going to do that" and "I will do that" convey precisely the same thing, with the same certainty? Unless, of course, there is a stress or intonation in either case, such as , "I AM going..." and "I WILL do..." or an adverb that denotes the level of certainty, such as "Shirley."

The only reason things such as this have any importance is when they fail to communicate clearly. A Brit might take an unintended tone of certainty/uncertainty from a Yank, and the American might not realize that when the Brit bloke says, "I will do that" it's certain.

Or have I been misinformed by various British textbooks and Thai ajarns, that there is a difference at all? Surely I am going to need some guidance on this...

It's not perfectly acceptable it's just in common usage (in British English).

"British English", as opposed to English? Surely English will suffice. "American English", yes.

It's not perfectly acceptable it's just in common usage (in British English).

"British English", as opposed to English? Surely English will suffice. "American English", yes.

The only time i seen some one sitting on the bus was on a trip from

savanakhett to vientiane,, the rest of us sat in the bus