| Author |
Message |
Fred
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:51 am
Post subject: Gotten |
|
|
Sorry if this has been done to death already.
Is it true that the word gotten was originally part of English English?
If so, then when did it disappear (I'm assuming it is now verboten)?
It does seem to me that there are occasions when I feel we have lost
something in its passing.
Does anyone agree?
Fred
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Fred wrote:
| Quote: | Sorry if this has been done to death already.
Is it true that the word gotten was originally part of English
English? If so, then when did it disappear (I'm assuming it is now
verboten)?
|
The last UK use of it cited in OED dates from 1894.
However, I'm not at all sure that it didn't linger some time after that in
the speech of older (especially uneducated) people. I certainly remember
the similar "boughten" being used by a middle-aged lady of my acquaintance
in the mid-1960s.
| Quote: | It does seem to me that there are occasions when I feel we have lost
something in its passing.
Does anyone agree?
|
Well, perhaps, but I don't think it's a great loss.
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
Web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
No man is an island. So is Man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Mountifield
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
In article <F4019E3E200412171126140130001@news.lillathedog.net>,
Enrico C <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
It does seem to me that there are occasions when I feel we have lost
something in its passing.
Does anyone agree?
snip
But under what circumstances does the use of "got" rather than
"gotten" create a problem?
Well... Americans have have both "gotten" and "got", with different usage.
|
But do they ever use "got" as a past participle? I though they only used
it as a simple imperfect.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
"Matthew Huntbach" <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.61.0412170952090.12734@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk...
| Quote: |
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?
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.
| Quote: | But under what circumstances does the use of "got" rather than
"gotten" create a problem?
|
I had an example in mind when I originally posted but it's gone for the
minute - hopefully it will come back
Fred |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Barnes
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Mike Stevens wrote:
| Quote: | Fred wrote:
Is it true that the word gotten was originally part of English
English? If so, then when did it disappear (I'm assuming it is now
verboten)?
The last UK use of it cited in OED dates from 1894.
However, I'm not at all sure that it didn't linger some time after that in
the speech of older (especially uneducated) people. I certainly remember
the similar "boughten" being used by a middle-aged lady of my acquaintance
in the mid-1960s.
|
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.
An interesting one for me is "soaken" as past participle of "to soak".
I once found myself using it to a stranger at an airport (the exact
usage was "Look, the heel has come off my shoe and the rain has soaken
right through - do you know if I can buy some new shoes here?") and
then spent much of the flight genuinely unable to recall whether the
past participle of "to soak" is "soaken" or "soaked". I note a Google
search reveals a few "has soaken"s, including an occurrence in an
Elton John song lyric, but vastly more "has soaked", and I don't find
"soaken" mentioned as a possibility in my dictionary.
| Quote: | It does seem to me that there are occasions when I feel we have lost
something in its passing.
Does anyone agree?
Well, perhaps, but I don't think it's a great loss.
|
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.
But under what circumstances does the use of "got" rather than
"gotten" create a problem?
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Enrico C
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 5:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | It does seem to me that there are occasions when I feel we have lost
something in its passing.
Does anyone agree?
|
<snip>
| Quote: | But under what circumstances does the use of "got" rather than
"gotten" create a problem?
|
Well... Americans have have both "gotten" and "got", with different usage.
--
enrico /dot/ c /at\ people \dot\ it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Mountifield
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 7:38 pm
Post subject: 2nd person pronouns (Was: Re: Gotten) |
|
|
In article <Pine.LNX.4.61.0412171355260.16256@frank.dcs.qmul.ac.uk>,
Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: |
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.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Lindsey
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
In <cpt3hl$70k$1@titan.btinternet.com> "Fred" <Fred@somewhere.abc> writes:
| Quote: | Sorry if this has been done to death already.
Is it true that the word gotten was originally part of English English?
If so, then when did it disappear (I'm assuming it is now verboten)?
|
It was, and it still is AFAIAC. I am sure I have used it in contexts where
the strong form 'got' seemed inappropriate. Clearly, the weak forms
"gotted" or "getted" are wrong and ugly, so we have "gotten" instead.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Fax: +44 161 436 6133 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl@clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 8:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:12:49 +0000 (UTC), "Fred" <Fred@somewhere.abc> wrote:
| Quote: |
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. |
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Fred wrote:
| Quote: | "Matthew Huntbach" <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
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?
|
Yes.
| Quote: | I have a vague memory that the 'y' in "you" and "your" derives from a thorn
rune in Old English.
|
No.
| Quote: | If that's the case, were the words "thou" and "you "actually different?
|
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".
| Quote: | 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. 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.
| Quote: | 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.
|
Indeed. In parts of the USA they have "you-all", but I have also heard
English-speaking people from an Indian background use it. My late
mother-in-law, who was Goan, was always absolutely consistent in this -
I never heard her use anything but "you-all" when addressing people in the
plural. If she was talking to me and said "you" I knew she meant me, if she
said "you-all" she meant me and my wife.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, 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.
|
It's quite likely that this, as in the Indian example I quoted, comes
from a community which had adopted English but in doing so found it hard
to drop the singular/plural second person distinction they had in their
former language.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Tony Mountifield wrote:
| Quote: | Enrico C <use_replyto_address@despammed.com> wrote:
Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
It does seem to me that there are occasions when I feel we have lost
something in its passing.
Does anyone agree?
But under what circumstances does the use of "got" rather than
"gotten" create a problem?
Well... Americans have have both "gotten" and "got", with different usage.
But do they ever use "got" as a past participle? I though they only used
it as a simple imperfect.
|
Having checked the references someone else gave to this (and I was in
fact vaguely aware of this previously), Americans use "gotten" as the
past participle of "to get" only in those circumstances where the verb
"to get" retains its original connotations of "to obtain". We now use the
verb "to get" merely to indicate possession, for some reason, we seem to
be turning away form plain "have", so "I have blue eyes" these days is
more likely to be "I have got blue eyes". That doesn't indicate that
I went out and obtained blue eyes. Under the circumstances where "to get"
indicates mere possession, Americans use "got" not "gotten" as the past
participle. So "I have got blue eyes" would be correct American English
("got" as past participle) while "I have gotten blue eyes" would only
be correct in unusual circumstances (e.g. someone who has purchased glass
eyes answering the question "What color eyes did you get?").
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:40 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote:
| Quote: | In <cpt3hl$70k$1@titan.btinternet.com> "Fred" <Fred@somewhere.abc> writes:
Is it true that the word gotten was originally part of English English?
If so, then when did it disappear (I'm assuming it is now verboten)?
It was, and it still is AFAIAC. I am sure I have used it in contexts where
the strong form 'got' seemed inappropriate. Clearly, the weak forms
"gotted" or "getted" are wrong and ugly, so we have "gotten" instead.
|
There are no such forms as "gotted" or "getted". In all cases where
USA English would use "gotten", the correct British English form is "got".
Perhaps your feeling that there are times when "gotten" is correct stems
from a familiarity with the form through the consumption of USA media
products. As I said, it does seem to be creeping back into British usage -
I think you see its occasional use now by Brits much more than was the
case twenty or more years ago.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hall
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:44 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
In article <cpum0h$8jd$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
Fred <Fred@somewhere.abc> writes:
| Quote: | 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".
--
John Hall
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in