Should it be ‘bitten’ instead of ‘bit’?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Central/02/05/referees.bitten.ap/index.html
I think you’re right, if they’re pairing it with “was”. A person/animal bit him, but he was bitten.
My dictionary lists both. What does your dictionary show?
Isn’t this a British/American English difference? Like “got” and “gotten”?
Bitten is the past participle of bite. Bitten is correct, not bit.
Do any of you have any sources for your contentions? I’ve looked it up in two paper dictionaries and four online dictionaries. Both paper dictionaries and three of the online dictionaries list BOTH bitten and bit as part participles of bite. One online dictionary, which appears to be British, lists only bitten, so we might infer that bit is incorrect for British usage, but it is clearly correct for American usage.
http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0285500.html
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=7741&dict=CALD
I regress! Bit is also mentioned as correct, but bitten is listed first which usually indicates it is the preferred word.
And for those dictionaryless folks, I present this..
Yeah, I looked for it. I didn’t want to believe that “bit” was an acceptable part participle, but, well, there ya go. I guess I’ll accept it since my mind can justify it for having been presented as “irregular.”
And a usage reference also says that bit or bitten is correct.
OK, everyone, right now, put these two sites in your favorites/bookmarks (or even a quick link button on your tool bar)…
www.onelook.com
www.bartleby.com
Peace.
That would be a judgement that someone else is imparting to the dictionary. The order from the dictionary’s point of view probably indicates just what is more common.
Anyway, the point is that if they are both correct, then they are both correct, regardless of what order they appear in the dictionary.