This is something I’ve started noticing in British English speech, the use of the simple past instead of a present or past participle.
The example that comes to mind is in the thread title:
“I was sat there.”
I would never say this. Instead, I might say:
“I was sitting there.”
“I was seated there.”
“I sat there.”
Or some other form.
What’s going on with the “sat there” usage? Does this phenomenon have a name? Is it recent or ancient? Is it one of those things that is going to nails-on-a-chalkboard me until the end of my days or will it die out?
Not sure about the phenomenon in general, but “I was sat there” as commonly used in the UK conveys different information to “I was sitting there”. The latter is just a neutral statement about an event in the past. The former implies some sort of ownership of the space and the desire to be resat in the same spot.
That’s standard in all dialects, it’s not what OP is talking about.
In some dialects of British English (including mine, London), there’s a colloquial usage along these lines:
I was sat there minding my own business when he started shouting at me.
We were stood there for an hour waiting for her to show up.
I don’t agree with Calavera’s analysis that it implies ownership. It tends to be used anecdotally in setting a scene, perhaps to highlight something unexpected or incongruous in juxtaposition with the action.
Fascinating, I’ve never encountered this usage before. Is this specific to the word “sat” or can the simple past tense be used in place of the past progressive with other verbs? Are any of these valid?
I was waited there. (= standard “I was waiting there.”)
I was stood there.
I was ran there.
I was looked for it there.
I agree that “I was seated there” is the equivalent.
Seat is one of the those verbs that has some irregular tenses. They’re fading out of usage. People now say “I kneeled down” rather than “I knelt down” or “I blowed out the candles” rather than “I blew out the candles”.
The change is uneven. Some people will adopt the regular form while others are still using the traditional irregular form.
Well that might be correct, but informally most British english speakers might also use and understand ‘he sat (someone)’ as a valid equivalent to ‘he seated (someone)’. Would the expression ‘he sat me down over there’ or ‘I was sat down over there’ be less jarring to those unfamiliar with the ‘I was sat over there’ colloquialism?
Don’t listen to any english footballers talk about anything. They have developed a bizarre argot that runs roughshod over any grammatical rule and tramples metaphors into the mud.
‘Tell us about the winning goal, Dean-o.’
‘Well I’ve seen the full back bombing on, I’ve picked his pocket, I’ve played a wall pass round the corner with Enrique, I see the space through the false 10 channel, I’ve looked up and I put the ball top bin - in off the beans.’
But I don’t think that the usage I’m talking about is using “sat” in this way. It really sounds to me that the person is describing es own actions, not the recipient of another person’s action.
In other words, it sounds to me like es saying simply “ I was sitting there” or “I sat there.”
It seems to me that I’ve heard something similar on Are You Being Served? (my definitive source for all aspects of British culture :)). The staff were called in early for a meeting, but no one remembered to unlock the doors so they could get in. Mrs. Slocombe says something like, “We were stood there in the cold for twenty minutes!”