| Страниц в теме: < [1 2 3] > | The end of a word? (gotten) Автор темы: George Trail
|
|---|
Giles Watson 
Италия
Local time: 18:11
итальянский => английский
Памяти | Alive and well | Feb 6, 2011 |
Yes, I think it would really be rotten
If Britons no longer used "gotten"
But thank goodness I see
From a glance at the BBC
That "gotten" ain't getting forgotten
(At least in colloquial speech in the sense of "become")
http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=gotten
It's probably been reimported from North America but never mind.
| | | | JPW (X)
Local time: 17:11
испанский => английский
+ ...
| Got // gotten | Feb 6, 2011 |
In contrast to Rachel's post about the Chambers explanation, my Collins English dictionary does not list 'gotten' as either archaic or Scottish, but simply lists both words (in the entry for GET) equally, i.e. got or gotten, with the proviso that 'gotten' is used especially in the U.S., in other words it occurs there with more frequency.
That's how I read it, in much the same way as verbs which have a regular and an irregular form: dr... See more In contrast to Rachel's post about the Chambers explanation, my Collins English dictionary does not list 'gotten' as either archaic or Scottish, but simply lists both words (in the entry for GET) equally, i.e. got or gotten, with the proviso that 'gotten' is used especially in the U.S., in other words it occurs there with more frequency.
That's how I read it, in much the same way as verbs which have a regular and an irregular form: dreamed or dreamt, for example. Speaker's choice. The only problem is that in Britain, gotten has fallen somewhat into disuse, thereby sounding odd on the ear. That doesn't make it incorrect per se, though, but it might draw the odd snigger, or a raised eyebrow.
The only note on usage for 'get' is that the use of "off" after get, as in the sentence "I got this chair off an antique dealer" is acceptable in speech but not in (formal) writing. From would be better.
As for 'dove', it is explicitly listed as used only in North America, whereas we would (should?) say: dived.
Heinrich's link gives a pretty full explanation, but I would point out that English dictionaries really only reflect usage of the language, even if that usage is gramatically incorrect: if it becomes popularised and enough people are heard using it, chances are it will end up with a listing of its own.
The word 'got' is listed separately in my dictionary, whereas 'gotten' is most definitely not, not even a 'see get (or got)'.
This also begs another question: when two dictionaries do not exactly concur, which one is right?
It's not that I particularly favour one edition over another, it's just that I spotted the last copy of a Collins English in a bookshop, reduced from £30 to £8, for being 'slightly shop soiled' .... get in there!! ▲ Collapse
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Испания
Local time: 17:11
Член ProZ.com c 2007
английский
+ ...
| Re: irregular verbs | Feb 6, 2011 |
RichardDeegan wrote:
On a side line, for years I have been noting the disappearance in both A & B English of the past tense of irregular verbs (or what were irregular verbs back in the day). Most striking is "dove" (past tense of dive).
As Rachel has already said, the verb "dive" used to be regular, in all variants. More recently ("recently" probably being further back than any of us can remember - language evolves quite slowly, after all), we've been hearing "dove" from some American speakers, and perhaps from some British speakers, though not from this one!
What I can say with some authority, because I put the question to an "expert" in EFL, is that the list of irregular verbs that EFL students hate so much is now to be considered as a more or less finite list. New verbs tend (that's all that can be said, really) to be regular. So, you have the irregular verb "put" (put, put, put) but the newer "input" has both regular and irregular forms, probably depending on how old and/or rule-bound you are - take your pick. Of course, seeing as how the 10 most common verbs are irregular, they aren't about to die out. Also, some native speakers like to be inventive, resulting in funny/awful (please choose the one you agree with) words: microwoven, shat, tooken, snuck, .... [Note for non-native speakers: these are not "acceptable" forms, but they are quite common.]
| | | | Giles Watson
Италия
Local time: 18:11
итальянский => английский
Памяти
Chambers, being a much older publication, is a better source of historical data than Collins, which is corpus-based and heavily biased towards contemporary usage. Since Chambers' original publisher was based in Edinburgh, it is also more reliable for Scottish usage (other Scottish dictionaries are available).
On "gotten", the historically reliable and regularly upated OED gives many examples of "getten" and "gotten" in the sense of acquired or achieved from the 14th century onwards,... See more Chambers, being a much older publication, is a better source of historical data than Collins, which is corpus-based and heavily biased towards contemporary usage. Since Chambers' original publisher was based in Edinburgh, it is also more reliable for Scottish usage (other Scottish dictionaries are available).
On "gotten", the historically reliable and regularly upated OED gives many examples of "getten" and "gotten" in the sense of acquired or achieved from the 14th century onwards, fom Wyclif to Alexander Pope and Gladstone.
Your assumptions about English in "Britain" also fail to take into account the differences between North British (Scotland, Northumbria, Yorkshire, Lancashire - the main areas of origin of 17th and early 18th century emigrants to North America) and South British usage. Many archaic terms still current in parts of North Britain and North America are long obsolete in South Britain ("gotten" is one but there are many others, such as "skillet" for "frying pan" etc).
Finally, no dictionary is "right" or "wrong", although its users may be in attempting to read into the content information that was never there in the first place  ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ambrose Li
Канада
Local time: 12:11
английский
+ ...
Sheila Wilson wrote:
Also, some native speakers like to be inventive, resulting in funny/awful (please choose the one you agree with) words: microwoven, shat, tooken, snuck, .... [Note for non-native speakers: these are not "acceptable" forms, but they are quite common.]
I think shat is totally normal (it might not be “acceptable”, but it certainly is “accepted” and I’d even say “generally accepted”). But microwoven, tooken, and snuck would take a few seconds (at least) to “get”…
[Edited at 2011-02-06 22:09 GMT]
| | | |
RichardDeegan wrote:
On a side line, for years I have been noting the disappearance in both A & B English of the past tense of irregular verbs (or what were irregular verbs back in the day). Most striking is "dove" (past tense of dive). While early Hardy Boys books (1920s) have some uses of "dove", I don't think I've seen an instance of its use in well over thirty years. Even Clive Cussler, author of the Dirk Pitt maritime adventures, has been using "dived" exclusively for many years.
Comments?
"Dove"! Yes, where did that come from? It seems that many Americans are now using what should be "dived".
| | | | LEXpert
США
Local time: 11:11
Член ProZ.com c 2008
хорватский => английский
+ ...
If we got rid of (sorry! - make that "did away with") "microwoven", what would we call something made from or as a microweave (e.g., the clothing fabric, type of hair weave, or the setting on some older Epson injkets)?
| | | | Frances Leggett
Великобритания
Local time: 17:11
итальянский => английский
+ ...
| gotten in Australia as well | Feb 7, 2011 |
But Australian English is a bit of a mix of British and American English.
As far as I learnt at school, "gotten" was the past participle used in Australia and the US and "got" was the past participle used in the UK.
I think quite a few examples of American English differing from UK English derive from the fact that British English has actually changed over the past 500 years whereas American English has kept some spelling and grammar that was the norm at the end of the 15th ... See more But Australian English is a bit of a mix of British and American English.
As far as I learnt at school, "gotten" was the past participle used in Australia and the US and "got" was the past participle used in the UK.
I think quite a few examples of American English differing from UK English derive from the fact that British English has actually changed over the past 500 years whereas American English has kept some spelling and grammar that was the norm at the end of the 15th century.
I've noticed quite often reading Jane Austen books (early 19th century) that "organize" and "realize" and even "surprize" were written with 'z' (not a US version of Jane Austen novels either!). In fact, the English spelling was later changed to match the French spelling in an aim to stay true to its origins. ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
| pick a dictionary | Feb 7, 2011 |
Hello,
Pick a dictionary and stick with it. American and British English are constantly and surprisingly different. "American English" and "British English" themselves are fictions that are constantly and surprisingly different from region to region and context to context.
A recent example in my work was "semi"/"semi-detached" vs. "duplex", where I could not get anyone to agree. After finally settling on my solution, I had to listen as Marilyn Monroe started talking about a "d... See more Hello,
Pick a dictionary and stick with it. American and British English are constantly and surprisingly different. "American English" and "British English" themselves are fictions that are constantly and surprisingly different from region to region and context to context.
A recent example in my work was "semi"/"semi-detached" vs. "duplex", where I could not get anyone to agree. After finally settling on my solution, I had to listen as Marilyn Monroe started talking about a "duplex" in the British/New England (NE of the USA) sense of the word in "Some Like it Hot"... My (unfounded) annoyance at the "Way out" signs in the airport on Palma is another example.
Use a dictionary and a style-guide and stick to it, anything else is insanity.
Sincerely,
Michael ▲ Collapse
| | | |
This form (generally considered incorrect in any variant of English) is heard so often in the US, that it would not surprise me if it has found its way into certain dictionaries....
| | | | Giles Watson
Италия
Local time: 18:11
итальянский => английский
Памяти | It's snuck into the OED | Feb 7, 2011 |
Robert Forstag wrote:
This form (generally considered incorrect in any variant of English) is heard so often in the US, that it would not surprise me if it has found its way into certain dictionaries....
The OED notes "snuck" as an American variant of "sneaked", quoting examples from Jack Kerouac, Oz magazine and Raymond Chandler (who was educated at Dulwich College in London) among others. The earliest is from 1887.
| | | | Gillian Searl
Великобритания
Local time: 17:11
немецкий => английский
| According to Bill Bryson, | Feb 7, 2011 |
The Americans were too busy surviving for a couple of hundred years to work too much on their language whilst the British didn't have that problem. Thus British English developed more than American English. And since we didn't have so much communication between the languages back then they developed differently. But now we have so much content from the US, instant access in a million ways, the Brits are reverting back to the old form because it appears frequently and people therefore thing it's ... See more The Americans were too busy surviving for a couple of hundred years to work too much on their language whilst the British didn't have that problem. Thus British English developed more than American English. And since we didn't have so much communication between the languages back then they developed differently. But now we have so much content from the US, instant access in a million ways, the Brits are reverting back to the old form because it appears frequently and people therefore thing it's right. So in effect BE is reverting to a less developed form.
Gill ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
JPW (X)
Local time: 17:11
испанский => английский
+ ...
I know the book you are referring to, I just can't remember its name just now!
But just think how different things would be today if the US had adopted German as the official language, as they nearly did, according to the illustrious Mr. B.
Makes you wonder, all this 'what-iffery'.
(Is that one in the dictionary too?).
| | | | George Trail
Великобритания
Local time: 17:11
Член ProZ.com c 2009
французский => английский
+ ...
Автор темы
"Woven" is the past participle of the verb to weave, not to wave! "Microwoven" doesn't exist!
| | | | | And here's another one... | Feb 7, 2011 |
To a lot of people here in the South, including my wife, the past tense of "drag" is "drug".
| | | | | Страниц в теме: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » The end of a word? (gotten) | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | Trados Business Manager Lite | Create customer quotes and invoices from within Trados Studio
Trados Business Manager Lite helps to simplify and speed up some of the daily tasks, such as invoicing and reporting, associated with running your freelance translation business.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
