| Author |
Message |
Phil C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:47:13 +0000 (UTC), "Fred" <Fred@somewhere.abc>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Brian {Hamilton Kelly}" <bhk@dsl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20041220.0139.58868snz@dsl.co.uk...
On Sunday, in article
9Ylxd.1436$gj2.1248@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net
john.briggs4@ntlworld.com "John Briggs" wrote:
This adoption of Y for thorn then led back into manually written material
(not just manuscript, but display signwriting).
Er, perhaps.
(I don't believe that Y was used for thorn in pre-letterpress days except
by mistake; nothing deliberate about it.)
This is very interesting stuff.
I understand that one of the reasons for English being so un-phonetic is
that the characters used to write the modern language were different from
those in which it was originally recorded and developed. I'm thinking in
particular of the 'ough' sounds. I had always assumed that this was related
to the Norman Conquest and the adoption of Norman French (and its associated
alphabet) as the language of the ruling class. However did printing presses
also play a role in this?
|
I don't think the change of characters would have made much difference
beyond certain specialised cases - though pronunciation difficulties
certainly had an effect. But most languages are more phonetically
spelled than English in spite of many more invasions. The central
cause is that there is no controlling body for "correct" English. Both
pronunciation and spelling have developed haphazardly. In some cases
we have the spelling from one dialect and pronounciation from another
(e.g "bury" IIRC). In other cases the pronunciation has developed
while the old spelling has remained (knight?). The printing press no
doubt helped "standardise" spelling before pronunciation had settled
down.
In some cases unphonetic spellings were deliberately introduced as
conceits, often to emphasise classical roots - debt, receipt, Thames.
I believe it remains uncertain exactly how phonetic Old English was -
though certainly much more so than modern English. Variations in
spelling may show individual taste or reflect genuine local
pronunciation differences.
--
Phil C.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Phil C. wrote:
| Quote: | "Fred" <Fred@somewhere.abc> wrote:
I understand that one of the reasons for English being so un-phonetic is
that the characters used to write the modern language were different from
those in which it was originally recorded and developed. I'm thinking in
particular of the 'ough' sounds. I had always assumed that this was related
to the Norman Conquest and the adoption of Norman French (and its associated
alphabet) as the language of the ruling class. However did printing presses
also play a role in this?
|
It has nothing to do with the Norman invasion. By the time the first
printing presses came into use the ruling classes had long been using
English as their first language.
| Quote: | I don't think the change of characters would have made much difference
beyond certain specialised cases - though pronunciation difficulties
certainly had an effect. But most languages are more phonetically
spelled than English in spite of many more invasions. The central
cause is that there is no controlling body for "correct" English. Both
pronunciation and spelling have developed haphazardly.
|
The main problem was that English underwent a fairly radical change in
pronunciation some time *after* the first printing presses came into use.
By this time spelling conventions had already been established, so the
spelling is close to the pronunciation before the changes of the 16th
century and onwards.
In the case of the "ough" words, the "gh" represents a sound that when
English first came to be written and printed was pronounced. In Scotland
there are "gh"s which are still pronounced where in standard English
they are not e.g. in "night". In some cases the "gh" in the "ough" words
gradually became completely silent, in others it was replace by another
fricative sound, "f". Compare with the "th" sound right now, which is
another rather awkward fricative getting replaced by "f" in the speech
of many people in southern England. If English were allowed to develop
naturally, "Estuary English" would become the standard, which would
represent a further step away from the pronunciation that the spelling
reflects.
Languages whose spelling is closer to their pronunciation have either not
undergone such a big change in pronunciation in recent centuries as English
has, or have developed a written standard at a later date and thus have
had less time for the pronunciation to deviate from the spelling.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 21, 2004 9:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 13:30:39 +0000, Matthew Huntbach
<mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> said:
| Quote: | On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Bob Cunningham wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:52:50 +0000, Matthew Huntbach
mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> said:
But under what circumstances does the use of "got" rather than
"gotten" create a problem?
In American English, "I've got" means "I possess", while
"I've gotten" means "I have obtained". Where English
English rejects "gotten", speakers lack that way to make the
distinction.
I've read in this thread that "gotten" has begun to be used
in English English. I suspect that even among those who are
beginning to use "gotten", the distinction I've mentioned
above doesn't exist there. Is that true?
"Gotten" is being picked up by people who have become so used to hearing
it in USA media that they have no idea this usage is not standard in
British English. It's an unconscious usage rather than a conscious
attempt to "sound American". So I would imagine it is learnt as any other
piece of grammar in one's native language is learnt. If American children
naturally pick up the "got/gotten" distinction, then I suppose British
children would as well. Do American children take a while to get the hang
of it, so sometimes use "gotten" when "got" would be appropriate?
|
I find that question quite interesting, but I'm in no
position to say what most American children do. There are
millions of them, and I get to hear only a few.
I think I'll pose the question to my granddaughter. She is
paying fairly close attention to the language development of
her daughter, Nathalie, who is now two. I'll ask her if
she'd like to take note of the first time Nat shows
awareness of the distinction, if she ever does.
Nat tends to speak Norwegian to her peers and English to
adults. (Her father is a Norwegian who speaks English well,
and the family lives in Norway.) I suppose Norwegian could
in time have some effect on her perception of English
nuances. Also, I don't know if it's still true, but I think
many years ago Scandinavians mostly learned British English
rather than American. It seems quite possible that they
wouldn't ever acquire the American "got/gotten" distinction.
I'd find it interesting to learn whether Nat's father makes
the distinction.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote:
Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> writes:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Charles Lindsey wrote:
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".
Exactly so. That was why I mentioned them.
So why would you want to use them rather than the correct (in British
English) "got"?
In all cases where USA English would use "gotten", the correct
British English form is "got".
So what do you do with your "Ill got gains"?
One of many cases where a form which is otherwise archaic is preserved
in a stock phrase. You cannot say "badly gotten" or "well gotten".
Neiter can you say "badly got" or "well got", so it's not a good example |
- although I do agree with the point you make about the preservation of
archaic usages in stock phrases.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Giles Todd
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:17 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:05:15 +0000, Matthew Huntbach
<mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Languages whose spelling is closer to their pronunciation have either not
undergone such a big change in pronunciation in recent centuries as English
has, or have developed a written standard at a later date and thus have
had less time for the pronunciation to deviate from the spelling.
|
Or languages which periodically reform their orthography with a view
to making it more phonetic. There have been two spelling reforms for
Dutch since WWII, and the row over the last one in the mid-1990s
lingers on (the 'koninginnedag' versus 'koninginnendag' dispute).
Giles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:33 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan" <"einde. ocallaghan wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Charles Lindsey (if my snipping is correct) wrote:
So what do you do with your "Ill got gains"
|
and somebody (Matthew H?) replied
| Quote: | One of many cases where a form which is otherwise archaic is
preserved in a stock phrase. You cannot say "badly gotten" or "well
gotten".
Neiter can you say "badly got" or "well got", so it's not a good
example - although I do agree with the point you make about the
preservation of archaic usages in stock phrases.
|
I've often wodered whether "gotten" in that phrase is actually a derivate of
the verb "to get" ot whether it's the other "gotten" - an abbreviation of
"begotten". Either meaning seems to me to work in that phrase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 7:21 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Mike Stevens wrote:
| Quote: | einde. ocallaghan" <"einde. ocallaghan wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Charles Lindsey (if my snipping is correct) wrote:
So what do you do with your "Ill got gains"
and somebody (Matthew H?) replied
One of many cases where a form which is otherwise archaic is
preserved in a stock phrase. You cannot say "badly gotten" or "well
gotten".
Neiter can you say "badly got" or "well got", so it's not a good
example - although I do agree with the point you make about the
preservation of archaic usages in stock phrases.
I've often wodered whether "gotten" in that phrase is actually a derivate of
the verb "to get" ot whether it's the other "gotten" - an abbreviation of
"begotten". Either meaning seems to me to work in that phrase.
"beget", just like "forget", derives ultimately from "get" with a |
prefix. In British English "get" has lost it original participle form,
but with "beget" and "forget" this form has been retained.
I don't think it's necessary in "ill-gotten" to postulate that the
"gotten" part is an abbreviation of "begotten". "Ill-gotten" simply
means that the possessor acquired (got) whatever is described by the
noun in an ill (i.e. bad or dishonest) manner.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Stevens
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 8:22 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan" <"einde. ocallaghan wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Stevens wrote:
I've often wodered whether "gotten" in that phrase is actually a
derivate of the verb "to get" ot whether it's the other "gotten" -
an abbreviation of "begotten". Either meaning seems to me to work
in that phrase.
"beget", just like "forget", derives ultimately from "get" with a
prefix. In British English "get" has lost it original participle form,
but with "beget" and "forget" this form has been retained.
I don't think it's necessary in "ill-gotten" to postulate that the
"gotten" part is an abbreviation of "begotten". "Ill-gotten" simply
means that the possessor acquired (got) whatever is described by the
noun in an ill (i.e. bad or dishonest) manner.
|
I didn't suggest that it was a necessary interpretation of the phrase,
simply an alternative. In my (perhaps idiosyncratic) mind, "ill-gotten"
chimes somehow with "misbegotten".
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Me cogitare credo ergo me esse credo.
(Rainy-Day-Carts) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
At 01:21:51 on Wed, 22 Dec 2004, einde. ocallaghan <"einde.
ocallaghan"@planet-interkom.de> wrote in
<32rsl3F3q22u7U1@individual.net>:
| Quote: | "beget", just like "forget", derives ultimately from "get" with a
prefix. In British English "get" has lost it original participle form,
but with "beget" and "forget" this form has been retained.
|
Interesting, though, that while we have "got" and "forgot", we have
"begat".
--
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 |
|
|
einde. ocallaghan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
Molly Mockford wrote:
| Quote: | At 01:21:51 on Wed, 22 Dec 2004, einde. ocallaghan <"einde.
ocallaghan"@planet-interkom.de> wrote in <32rsl3F3q22u7U1@individual.net>:
"beget", just like "forget", derives ultimately from "get" with a
prefix. In British English "get" has lost it original participle form,
but with "beget" and "forget" this form has been retained.
Interesting, though, that while we have "got" and "forgot", we have
"begat".
|
Yes, indeed - possibly a remnant of another irregular form.
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FB
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:12 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:40:10 +0000, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | In all cases where USA English would use "gotten", the correct British English form is "got".
[...] |
I don't think one can always just replace "gotten" with "got" and preserve
the original meaning. Consider "We've gotten a great many letters today".
Would you "translate" it as "We've got a great many letters today?".
Bye, FB
--
"Is this Miss Prism a female of repellent aspect, remotely connected with
education?" "She is the most cultivated of ladies, and the very picture of
respectability" "It is obviously the same person".
("The Importance of Being Earnest", Oscar Wilde) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Hall
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
In article <1ctb63woq83ci.bcwfw148ux0g.dlg@40tude.net>,
FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> writes:
| Quote: | On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:40:10 +0000, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
[...]
In all cases where USA English would use "gotten", the correct
British English form is "got".
[...]
I don't think one can always just replace "gotten" with "got" and preserve
the original meaning. Consider "We've gotten a great many letters today".
Would you "translate" it as "We've got a great many letters today?".
|
Yes, that would be quite normal in British English, where "got" can be a
synonym for "received", though admittedly not very elegant.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:43 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, FB wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:40:10 +0000, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
In all cases where USA English would use "gotten", the correct British
English form is "got".
I don't think one can always just replace "gotten" with "got" and preserve
the original meaning. Consider "We've gotten a great many letters today".
Would you "translate" it as "We've got a great many letters today?".
|
Since "gotten" is not part of my language how am I supposed to know?
However, "We've got a great many letters today" is perfectly correct
British English.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, John Hall wrote:
| Quote: | FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> writes:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:40:10 +0000, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
In all cases where USA English would use "gotten", the correct
British English form is "got".
I don't think one can always just replace "gotten" with "got" and preserve
the original meaning. Consider "We've gotten a great many letters today".
Would you "translate" it as "We've got a great many letters today?".
Yes, that would be quite normal in British English, where "got" can be a
synonym for "received", though admittedly not very elegant.
|
What seems to be happening is that the verb "to have" is losing its
meaning of possession and is becoming a mere grammatical marker. In
its place the verb "to get" is coming to be used to mean merely
"possession" whereas previously it would have implied an actual act to
obtain possession. So forms with "have" used as the only verb are
getting replaced with "have got".
So I'm assuming that in the past there would have been a distinction
between
"We have a great many letters today"
and
"We have got a great many letters today"
(where "We have" can become "we've").
The first would imply possession of many letters not necessarily
delivered today, while the second implies a great many letters
delivered this very day. However, with the gradual slipping into
archaism of plain "have" forms, the second is starting to be used
with the original meaning of the first. Do I take it that FB is suggesting
that the second sentence is used in USA English to imply mere possession,
whilst
"We have gotten a great many letters today"
is used to mean reception this very day?
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2004 1:57 am
Post subject: Re: Gotten |
|
|
On Thursday, in article
<1ctb63woq83ci.bcwfw148ux0g.dlg@40tude.net>
fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it "FB" wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:40:10 +0000, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
[...]
In all cases where USA English would use "gotten", the correct British
English form is "got".
[...]
I don't think one can always just replace "gotten" with "got" and preserve
the original meaning. Consider "We've gotten a great many letters today".
Would you "translate" it as "We've got a great many letters today?".
|
As others have said, yes. Although only the lazy[1] would use the verb
"got" at all; proper English would expect "We've received a lot[2] of
letters today".
[1] This would include those speaking "Basic English", with its 4,000 (?)
word vocabulary.
[2] Some purists might claim to eschew "a lot"; however, "a great many"
sounds more stilted (far more stilted than "received" instead of "got").
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} bhk@dsl.co.uk
"I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
software and decent hardware support." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in