I am sat down OR we are sat down, (instead of I am sitting down) is it used somewhere in USA or in Britain? is it acceptable nowadays?
I don't think it's a new trend: several regional varieties of English have always (to the best of my knowledge) used the past participle instead of the present participle in this construction.
Loob, it's not my way.Have it your way, Ivan. I'd say "sat", there, is a past participle used as an adjective. But I haven't got the energy to argue with you. Perhaps youd like to read some of the other threads.
I surely took the point but it's not what it really is. It's just that in many regional dialects in Britain people take the past participle to mean the present participle. But does it really enable "sat" to be considered the present particle?You have misunderstood the point made in many of the threads on this topic. In many regional dialects in Britain 'sat' is not only the past participle of 'sit', it is also the present participle. "I was sat" is not passive, it is the continuous past tense and equivalent to the non-regional "I was sitting".
What do you mean? If my daughter-in-law (a very well-educated Lancastrian) calls me on her mobile phone and says "We're going to be late, we're sat in a traffic queue just south of Bridgwater", she is using the present participle of "sit" in her dialect. People from her part of England said "We're sat here" long before a grammarian came up with the term "present participle".It can't be drawn upon.
It seems to be going too far to describe sat as a present participle (which is a traditional name for the -ing form of the verb).In many of those dialects "sat", using the terminology of grammarians, is the present participle of "sit". That the present participle in other dialects is "sitting" has no bearing on the dialects where it is not.
Would it?This would make sat the only example of a past participle being a present participle.
Do you mean in standard English ignoring regional dialects? If that is how you wish to see things, fine. What, then, is your label for sat in "I am sat" and stood in "I am stood" when the sentences are being used with a present continuous meaning? Must we label them by form or by function?The present participle in English is a regular inflectional form (always ending in -ing).
The present participle in English is a regular inflectional form (always ending in -ing).
That's why to call sat a present participle (a traditional term) is an extraordinary claim, whether the meaning is regional or part of a dialect.
Sat is formed like a strong verb and its past participle is the same. Stood is also described as a regional form of the past participle.
The meaning of the past participle in we were sat in the cinema is adjectival (e.g. seated). This is a state, as described in #21.
If sat is a present participle, I would expect it to be used like the traditional gerund. Do we say thing like My sat on the big chair made him angry? This would make sense if we talked about My sitting, so why does it sound wrong?
The same argument applies to the term subjunctive. English has no subjunctive mood, i.e. an inflected form of the verb differing from other forms. The one exception is the use of were in the third person, which is a historical relic and has been superseded by was in many cases.
Modern grammar talks about subjunctive constructions and does not recognise subjunctive forms, which can be explain by reference to, for example, the base form of the verb. If we have an apparent subjunctive construction (as in I demand that he return the money), there is no justification for saying that demand is a subjunctive form, but only that the syntax is one of subjunctive.
The fact that some speakers regard we were sat as regional does not justify overturning established principles of grammar where inflection is concerned. The same inflection can give rise to different meanings (as in it's time I went to bed, where I went is the past tense but carries no past meaning).
... my sense from reading and hearing examples is the people who use it use it as a direct substitute for sitting.
You have misunderstood the point made in many of the threads on this topic. In many regional dialects in Britain 'sat' is not only the past participle of 'sit', it is also the present participle.
But it doesn't. People who use the dialect form "I am sat" as I have used it in this thread mean exactly the same as speakers who use the standard "I am sitting". Your explanation can only be true if English speakers use both forms; they don't, they use one or the other.Using the present participle emphasizes an ongoing situation of the present time. Using the past participle expresses a state as an adjective does: likewise 'I am seated' 'I am tired'.
They can but they don't as they call it the past particle. For me the case is crystal clear and closed.
I'm quite happy to maintain that, in some English dialects, sat and stood are both past and present participles by function, even if some people think it intolerable to label them that way.
"I'm sat at the table" isn't used in Australia, but I've long been aware of this kind of construction through my interactions with Brits. Apart from "sit" and "stand", I wonder if any other verbs might be able to take this form? Those two verbs are about body positions, but it seems unlikely that anyone would say "I'm lain in bed".
Neither can II can't think of verbs other than sit and stand that have this particular dialect usage.
As a student of the English language clearly I don't 'feel' the language as native speakers do. So by what you and kentix have said. in these particular idiomatic cases the past participles 'sat' and 'stood' lose their original significance and acquire the semantic of an ongoing situation similar to the one expressed by a present participle.
He was perched?They were crouched?Apart from "sit" and "stand", I wonder if any other verbs might be able to take this form?
I don't understand the point you're making, benny. Can you explain?I think your red phrase [my red, benny] kind of begs the question. You make Andy and his peers newcomers on the BE scene.
Neither can I
I said exactly that only yesterday morningthe use of I am sat etc. [...] is a fairly common construction and not a long way off becoming standard English, in my view.
He was perched?They were crouched?
I don't understand the point you're making, benny. Can you explain?
As is probably clear from my previous comments, I wouldn't myself say that 'sat' in I am sat is "functioning as similar to present participle" (still less that it is a present participle). But I agree if what you're saying is that it has a long history - here's the OED on the construction:Boccherini is intending to make a supportive comment, but he speaks of an 'original significance' of 'sat'. Presumably as simple past. However if there is a long history of 'sat' functioning as similar to present participle (per Andy), then the 'original' significance is NOT modified by latecomers using it as similar in function to a present participle.