Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
Can we start a grassroots revolution against this pernicious abuse of grammar that is taking over the language? I've heard it a number of times on BBC Radio and almost everywhere else.
"I'm stood outside the offices of HMRC."
"I was sat on the train for hours."
NO!!!!
"I am standing."
"I was sitting."
"I was sat" is grammatically correct only if used passively. It means somebody else had sat you on the train without your volition or control (and for this reason isn't possible with 'for hours' because it was past-simple, one-off action).
CORRECT: "The mannequin was stood outside the shop to attract customers." (The mannequin was placed there by someone else.)
I appreciate there will be people who'll say, "Oh the language is always evolving and we have to accept new usages." But if we accept this, we lose the difference between active and passive voice. What's next? Abandon tenses?
[PS, I have just finished a large coffee]
Comments
No, you didn't! You LAY on the bed!
Also, 'I lead the group...'
No! You LED them!
I know a children's writer who doesn't ever use a cliché, even in the 'thoughts' of her characters (she is a great writer). BUT the descriptions she uses, whilst excellent and evocative, always stop me while I admire them, instead of helping me move on into the narrative. I think in writing you have to be aware that sometime cliché is exactly what is needed, even if it isn't in dialogue, as being either the the most perfect way to say something, or the quickest without disturbing flow. After all, clichés are exactly that, a shorthand, and most people think in them all the time. It's silly to pretend we don't. As they are so common, prose containing descriptions of everyday things that don't contain cliché all the way through a book would be wrong. However, Cliché plot lines and reactions and story... yes, there I agree!
While it's true that the ability to change is a strength of English, in this case I think we've lost something (the differentiation between active and passive).
Change is good when it enriches, not impoverishes.
I wrote a letter to the TLS years ago pointing out that they were using "coruscate" when they meant "excoriate" but nothing changed.
As for the comments about "lead" and "led" the difference is present vs past tense. eg" I lead the group now, Jane led them last week."