| Author |
Message |
Dave Clarke
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:01 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Friday 17 December 2004 09:52 Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Mike Stevens wrote:
The ending "-en" used to be standard for past participles of verbs in
English, but there has been a process of it dropping out and the past
tense form used for past participle. So a great many verbs have lost
their "-en" form. It happens that the verb "to get" lost it in British
English but not in USA English. It's possible that, like other archaic
forms, it was retained in some British dialects.
However, the situation is muddied by the fact that there seems to be an
increasing use of "gotten" from British English speakers, presumably
because they have heard it so often in USA media productions they assume
it is standard. It seems to be used more by young people than old, which
would back up the suggestion it's a USA (re)-import rather than a
dialect survival. I've seen it quite a few times in things like quotes
in local newspaper articles and usenet postigs from Brits where there is
no obvious intent to adopt an American mannerism. A couple of times when
I've questioned it, I've found the user genuinely surprised to be told
it isn't standard British English.
|
Is the phrase 'Ill gotten gains' an American import, or did it survive where
other uses of the word faded? I'm guessing the latter, but I've no idea.
--
Dave Clarke
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:46 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
John Hall wrote:
| Quote: | In article <cpum0h$8jd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
Fred <Fred@somewhere.abc> writes:
On the subject of distinguishing second person singular and plural.
My native Scouse can offer the rather intuitive (and dare I say
extremely attractive) alternative of "youse" for the plural form.
In parts of the American south, they not only have "you" and "you-all"
but also - as a friend and I discovered - "you-both".
|
Not exactly:
Singular is Y'all
Plural is Y'all
But there is also: All y'all
:-)
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:28 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Peter Duncanson wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:12:49 +0000 (UTC), "Fred" <Fred@somewhere.abc> wrote:
On the subject of distinguishing second person singular and plural. My
native Scouse can offer the rather intuitive (and dare I say extremely
attractive) alternative of "youse" for the plural form.
Imported from Ireland I believe.
Another plural I've come across in Ireland is "ye". |
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:29 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
<snip>
| Quote: |
Indeed. In parts of the USA they have "you-all",
|
This is often pronounced "y'all" by one American friend of mine.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:35 am
Post subject: Re: 2nd person pronouns (Was: Re: Gotten) |
|
|
Tony Mountifield wrote:
| Quote: | In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412171355260.16256@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
Yes, they are entirely separate words, and follow the standard
Indo-European pattern of there being a distinct second-person singular
and second-person plural. Compare, for example, with French where second
person singular subject is "tu" and second person plural subject is "vous".
Ok, so I'm confused! Any chance you could enlighten me
about this subject?
In French, and in other European languages, it came to be seen to be polite
to address someone in the plural i.e. to use "vous" rather than "tu". This
remains the case to this day.
I wonder how the slightly different pattern in German developed, where "ihr"
is the plural of "du", and "Sie" is the formal/polite for both.
Apparently it developed in the late 18th century. Before that the polite |
form was "ihr", i.e. the same pattern as English or French. It still
survives in some forms used when addressing royalty, e.g. "Euer Hoheit"
= "Your Highness". For some reason I haven't been able to fathom yet the
use of the third person plural (but capitalised) developed during the
late 18th and early 19th century.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico C
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 4:52 am
Post subject: Re: 2nd person pronouns (Was: Re: Gotten) |
|
|
"einde. ocallaghan" <"einde. ocallaghan"@planet-interkom.de> wrote:
| Quote: |
Tony Mountifield wrote:
In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412171355260.16256@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
Yes, they are entirely separate words, and follow the standard
Indo-European pattern of there being a distinct second-person singular
and second-person plural. Compare, for example, with French where second
person singular subject is "tu" and second person plural subject is "vous".
Ok, so I'm confused! Any chance you could enlighten me
about this subject?
In French, and in other European languages, it came to be seen to be polite
to address someone in the plural i.e. to use "vous" rather than "tu". This
remains the case to this day.
I wonder how the slightly different pattern in German developed, where "ihr"
is the plural of "du", and "Sie" is the formal/polite for both.
Apparently it developed in the late 18th century. Before that the polite
form was "ihr", i.e. the same pattern as English or French. It still
survives in some forms used when addressing royalty, e.g. "Euer Hoheit"
= "Your Highness". For some reason I haven't been able to fathom yet the
use of the third person plural (but capitalised) developed during the
late 18th and early 19th century.
|
In Italian we use the third-person feminin singular (Lei) as polite second
person singular (tu). The second-person plural (Voi) was also used as
polite singular you (tu) in the past [and in some parts of Italy it still
is], while the third-person plural (Loro) was used as polite second-person
plural (voi).
--
enrico /dot/ c /at\ people \dot\ it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FB
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:10 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:03:44 +0000 (UTC), Tony Mountifield wrote:
| Quote: | But do they ever use "got" as a past participle? I though they only used
it as a simple imperfect.
|
John Lawler has written about this on the page Mike Barnes has suggested:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/gotten.html
In particular:
They've got to leave (they must leave) vs
They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave).
As to the second sentence, am I right guessing you would use the one in
brackets, certainly not "they've gotten to leave", nor "they've got to
leave"? In brief, I think "to get" simply has one more meaning in AmEng,
for which BritEng speakers compensate using other verbs.
Bye, FB
--
Locked from the inside. That can only mean one thing, and I don't know what
it is.
(Murder by Death) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FB
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 5:18 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:10:19 GMT, FB wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:03:44 +0000 (UTC), Tony Mountifield wrote:
But do they ever use "got" as a past participle? I though they only used
it as a simple imperfect.
John Lawler has written about this on the page Mike Barnes has suggested:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/gotten.html
In particular:
They've got to leave (they must leave) vs
They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave).
As to the second sentence, am I right guessing you would use the one in
brackets, certainly not "they've gotten to leave", nor "they've got to
leave"? In brief, I think "to get" simply has one more meaning in AmEng
|
In the present perfect, I mean, for I suppose "they got to leave" is fine
in BritEng.
Bye, FB
--
"While I'm here, might I make a few changes? I adore my bedroom, but do you
think I could have my curtains washed? I believe they're red, but I should
like to make sure."
(Cold Comfort Farm, the film) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:21 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Dave Clarke wrote:
| Quote: | On Friday 17 December 2004 09:52 Matthew Huntbach wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Mike Stevens wrote:
The ending "-en" used to be standard for past participles of verbs in
English,
|
Oops! I didn't write that. Somebody's snipping has slipped.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:23 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
FB wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:03:44 +0000 (UTC), Tony Mountifield wrote:
But do they ever use "got" as a past participle? I though they only
used it as a simple imperfect.
John Lawler has written about this on the page Mike Barnes has
suggested:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/gotten.html
In particular:
They've got to leave (they must leave) vs
They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave).
As to the second sentence, am I right guessing you would use the one
in brackets, certainly not "they've gotten to leave", nor "they've
got to leave"? In brief, I think "to get" simply has one more meaning
in AmEng, for which BritEng speakers compensate using other verbs.
|
That makes sense to me.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giles Todd
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:29 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:44:48 +0000, John Hall
<nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | In parts of the American south, they not only have "you" and "you-all"
but also - as a friend and I discovered - "you-both".
|
Brilliant! The return of the dual. Goths will love that.
Giles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:33 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Fred wrote:
| Quote: | "Matthew Huntbach" <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0412170952090.12734@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
The loss of the second-person singular in English seems to me to be
regrettable because there are quite a few circumstances where one
would want to resolve the ambiguity as to whether "you" is meant to
be the person being spoken to or some group of which that person is
a part.
I presume you are referring to thee, thou?
I have a vague memory that the 'y' in "you" and "your" derives from a
thorn rune in Old English. If that's the case, were the words "thou"
and "you "actually different? Ok, so I'm confused! Any chance you
could enlighten me about this subject?
|
Um. Anglo Saxon had separate letters for the two different kinds of "th"
sound (as in "this" and "thick"). They were thorn and eth. A manuscript
thorn could be mistaked for a legter "y", and often was when certain
Anglo-Saxon letters were droppeing out of use (hence "Ye Olde" which is
actally a mistreading of "The Olde" written with an eth.)
But I asked 'er indoors, who knows more about such things than I do, whether
perhaps the difference between "you" and "ye" on the one hand and "thou" and
"thee" on the other was rooted in one using thorn and the other eth, but she
thought not. Pity, it was a nice theory. Thinking about it, she's probably
right as the genitive forms "yours" and "thine" are seriously different.
And in a different message Matthew also wrote
| Quote: | In French, and in other European languages, it came to be seen to be
polite
to address someone in the plural i.e. to use "vous" rather than "tu". This
remains the case to this day. It seems that in early modern English the
same applied - one would always address a group of people as "you", one
could address a single person as "thou", but it was considered more polite
to address a single person as "you". As time went on, in order not to
seem rude, "you" was used in more and more circumstances, to the point
where it became used in all circumstances.
|
Which makes it interesting that the one person who continued to be addressed
as "thou" (and still is in some circles) was God.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Old grammarians never die - they simple parse away |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giles Todd
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:48 am
Post subject: Re: 2nd person pronouns (Was: Re: Gotten) |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:54 +0100, "Enrico C"
<use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote:
| Quote: | In Italian we use the third-person feminin singular (Lei) as polite second
person singular (tu). The second-person plural (Voi) was also used as
polite singular you (tu) in the past [and in some parts of Italy it still
is], while the third-person plural (Loro) was used as polite second-person
plural (voi).
|
Similar in Spanish, but precise usage varies depending on the
Spanish-speaking country you happen to be in (e.g. in Spain, 'tu' and
'Usted' are familiar and polite singular forms respectively; in
South-West Colombia, everyone, familiar or not, is 'Usted'; in
Argentina, people often use a variant of the familiar second-person
plural for the singular polite form). In Spain, the familiar
second-person plural is 'vosotros' but in most of South America, it is
'Ustedes'. 'Usted' and 'Ustedes' take their respective third-person
conjugations.
All in all, it's a bit of a mess, and either clear context or an
otherwise unnecessary pronoun is required when using the third-person
of a Spanish verb.
Giles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:55 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
At 22:10:19 on Fri, 17 Dec 2004, FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote in
<4ahwhxet9528$.1rkkk04usbui3.dlg@40tude.net>:
| Quote: | They've got to leave (they must leave) vs
|
I suspect the actual usage would be "They've got to go" (cf Blunkett)
| Quote: | They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave).
|
I would definitely never use the former here, always the "managed" one
(or perhaps "succeeded in leaving").
--
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Clarke
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 8:15 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Friday 17 December 2004 23:21 Mike Stevens wrote:
| Quote: | Dave Clarke wrote:
On Friday 17 December 2004 09:52 Matthew Huntbach wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Mike Stevens wrote:
The ending "-en" used to be standard for past participles of verbs in
English,
Oops! I didn't write that. Somebody's snipping has slipped.
|
Sorry, my fault.
--
Dave Clarke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in