posted on June 28, 2008 04:17:55 PM new
Kiara: I don't know if this will help, but I *think* it means I used "gotten" correctly!
Here's what David Crystal says about The gotten/got distinction in
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (p.311):
"Gotten is probably the most distinctive of all the AmE/BrE grammatical
differences, but British people who try to use it often get it wrong.
It is not simply an alternative for have got. Gotten is used in such
contexts as
They've gotten a new boat. (= obtain)
They've gotten interested. (= become)
He's gotten off the chair. (= moved)
But it is not used in the sense of possession (= have). AmE does not
allow
*I've gotten the answer.
or *I've gotten plenty.
but uses I've got as in informal BrE. The availability of gotten
does however mean that AmE can make such distinctions as the following:
They've got to leave (they must leave) vs
They've gotten to leave (they've managed to leave)."
I'd add that Crystal's I've gotten the answer isn't starred if it means I have figured out the answer, rather than I have the answer.
_____________________
posted on June 28, 2008 04:26:07 PM new
This doesn't seem like a spat between you and me, Roadsmith. I believe that if you or most other people here had made a comment about a post that allegedly disappeared in the night that we would be prepared to mention who posted the message, what was said or at least what code was used and where they read the message...in email or in this thread.
And if in the light of morning they discovered that the so called code message on which they based their comment had disappeared, they could either delete their message and add an explanation using the suggestions above or leave their comment with an explanation. In either case they should be prepared and willing to answer anyone's question regarding the comment and the possibly disappeared post.
As it stands, without any explanation from Bill K. or edit it appears that his comment is in response to my post directly above or is perhaps in response to opinions about home schooling.
posted on June 28, 2008 06:10:34 PM new
Thanks for posting that, Roadsmith.
I don't know if this will help, but I *think* it means I used "gotten" correctly!
I hope you didn't think that I was doubting your use of the word because I wasn't.
Upon further research I found this site that also mentions the distinction between got and gotten.
What's correct, "he had GOT some" or "he had GOTTEN some"?
Dear Cecil:
A question that has been bothering me since the third grade: which is correct English--"He had got some" or "He had gotten some"? --Joseph M., Chicago
Dear Joseph:
There's still some ambiguity on this point. Using "gotten" as the past participle of "to get" will get you laughed out of every University Club in England, but it is in common use in the U.S., if only in speech and informal writing. One could make the case, however--and believe me, I will--that the choice of two past participle forms allows for a wider range of meanings than is possible with comparatively impoverished British English.
But first a bit of history. "Gotten" is actually the older form of the word, dating back to at least the fifteenth century. The King James translation of the Bible, published in 1611, prefers "gotten" to "got," but it was written in a self-consciously grand, archaic style. Shakespeare, working at the same time, seems to prefer "got," which by then had become the colloquial style. The "got" vs. "gotten" battle raged throughout the 1600s, the colonists taking "gotten" with them to America, where it flourished, while the stay-at-homes eventually came down on the side of "got." When Noah Webster, a man much in favor of simplifying the language, published his first American dictionary in 1864, he firmly declared "gotten" to be "obsolescent," but few paid strict attention.
In fact, I would venture to say that today both forms are proper, in both formal and informal usages, depending on the context. Permit me to quote A.H. Marckwardt, author of American English (1958): "... most Americans regularly make a very precise distinction between got and gotten. 'We've got ten thousand dollars for laboratory equipment,' means that the funds are in our possession--we have them. 'We have gotten ten thousand dollars for laboratory equipment,' means that we have obtained or acquired this particular sum of money. Few Americans would have the slightest question about the difference in the meaning of these two sentences...." In other words, got means you obtained something in the indefinite past, and gotten means you recently acquired it. This seems like a useful distinction to be able to make, and therefore Cecil brazenly declares it absolutely proper for all purposes, public and private. If some fussbudget gives you a hard time about it, tell him (or her) he'll have to answer to me.
posted on June 28, 2008 06:51:09 PM new "Sometimes I'm lazy and also say it like this: "I think some of us musta got a strange message from I forget who"
When I'm really lazy I say it like this: Strange message received from a PEBKAC.
posted on June 29, 2008 07:32:32 AM new
LOL Dis hs bn a gr8 lessn n hom skoolN 4 me. Iv bn so bZ dat I wz worid Id 4gt h2 spk ryt. Tnx 2 ROdsmth I knw d diff btw got n gotten. Av a gr8 dy!
posted on July 2, 2008 10:07:04 PM new
Bill K is a brilliant poster who has helped me innumerable times. He may have low-tolerance for less-than brilliant discussions and leave them entirely. If Round Table is to survive, it must accept the posts of EO posters. Otherwise, you are relegated to a life of few congratulatory pat-on-the-back posts.
posted on July 2, 2008 11:30:54 PM new
Who says the posts of EO people aren't accepted here? Who didn't accept Bill K's post? It was posted, and some responded to it. That's what happens here. It would be nice to see more people posting here, but EO posters who post here need to understand that this isn't the EO, and they may be questioned or challenged about what they write. We disagree here all the time and question each other. That's why most of us stop by. If you're suggesting that EO posters need to be handled with some sort of special consideration, well that's just silly, and it does a disservice to those posters by suggesting that they can't hold their own in this environment.
Pixiamom, I'm absolutely sure that such an attitude or sensitive nature is NOT the case with all members of Ebay Outlook. As a matter of fact, we were all, at one time or another, posters on Ebay Outlook. Many of us still post there, either occassionally or more often than you do.
For you to continue to insinuate that Ebay Outlook posters are not welcome here or that they can't deal with a simple question or disagreement during a discussion is ludicrous.
posted on July 3, 2008 07:49:14 AM newHe may have low-tolerance for less-than brilliant discussions and leave them entirely.
Wow, that's a direct insult to Roadsmith, Profe and Helen who commented on the topic before Bill left, which was about a day and a half before I arrived with my grammar inquiry.
Pixiamom, perhaps you are projecting your own feelings on Bill? The RT is accepting of posters from the EO. Funny thing, serious or heated political discussions get blasted here because some want poems and jokes instead and then when a topic strays and becomes a bit lighthearted there's more whining that it's 'less-than brilliant'.
