is it 'sitting' or 'sat'?

[grannieannie]

Can anyone tell me which is the correct grammar:
'she was sitting on the floor' or 'she was sat on the floor'?
I have always thought the former, but in everything I read they seem to use the latter. Thanks.

[aristotle]

Depending on the context, it could be either "She was sitting on the floor" or "She was seated on the floor" but "she was sat on the floor" is always wrong - unless perhaps you're American.

[Quizmonkey]

Woah! "Sat on the floor is always wrong??" I find that a bit prescriptive and unhelpful to the questioner - tell that to any contemporary author who will find both constructions acceptable (if not strictly grammatical as defined by 1930s grammar books).

I see the distinction as: sitting = what the girl's doing; and sat = where the girl is. So if the focus is on her (in)activity, use sitting; if you want to emphasise where she is, use 'sat'.

[BigMac]

"She was sitting on the floor" 1) past imperfect implying a continuing action in the past;

"She sat on the floor" - past perfect, implying an action that was completed in the past, using the past participle of the verb to sit;

"She was sat on the floor" - just plain wrong, confusing past imperfect structure with past participle use.

Here are two examples that demonstrate this. You would never say: "She was ate a biscuit" or "She was drank a cup of tea".

[$~Jeep~$]

QM, the poster asked which is the correct grammar.

Therefore, (as you pointed out yourself in brackets)
'she wassat on the floor is incorrect.

[Quizmonster]

Surely, in modern English colloquial usage, "She was sat on the floor" is perfectly acceptable as a passive form, meaning "Somebody put her into a sitting position on the floor." Thereafter, clearly, "She was sitting on the floor" of her own volition, as it were.
In another context, one might find, "The wedding ushers sat guests in church according to whether they were from the bride's side or the groom's."
There's nothing whatever wrong with either!

[horsestache1]

Just an idea, but I think it's the "was" that is wrong in "She was sat on the floor" Implying that she's not anymore!!

"she is sat on the floor" is fine.

Hey I'm a maths and science bod!!!!

[jno]

'she was sat' is becoming more common, but I don't think it qualifies as correct English just yet - except in the specific instance Quizmonster gives, where it means 'someone else sat her there'. If she sat herself there (which is the usual meaning), then 'she is sitting' or 'she is seated' would be better.

I think the confusion arises from the similarity of sit, seat and set (lay and lie cause problems too). Probably, 'she was sat' will be standard English in 10 years or so, but at present it's still a bit slangy.

[BigMac]

OK, it's a question of context.

"She was sat [by someone else] on the floor" is passive and in this context is acceptable.

"Where was she?" "She was sitting on the floor." This uses the gerundive (adjectival verb) to describe her position.

"What was she doing?" "She was sitting on the floor." This is the past imperfect and and in this context it is never correct to say "She was sat on the floor."

"What did she do?" "She sat on the floor" - straight forward past perfect.

[heathfield]

We got there in the end.

[$~Jeep~$]

Nothing wrong with those 2 sentences QM.

We were asked for the correct grammar, not familiar speech and writing.

The question related to was sat and was sitting, no other request was made, however many examples you care to mention, it is that which I and some other ABers were/are answering to!

[Quizmonkey]

Big Mac - I think you need to revise your grammar. "She sat on the floor" is NOT past perfect, it's simple past, incorporating the preterite 'sat'.

[Quizmonster]

$~Jeep~$, colloquial usage involves "correct grammar" just as much as formal English does...it's just that it isn't quite the same grammar!
So - if your 'QM' refers to me rather than Quizmonkey - I don't really accept your point, I'm afraid. But what the hey! That's enough on the matter as far as I'm concerned.

[$~Jeep~$]

Quizmonster, my humble apologies for mixing up the Quiz's, I shall be more attentive next time...

*Jeep slinks away feeling utterly stupid* having agreed only the other day to a post regarding people not reading the answers properly before replying!

So, sorry
Jeep xXx

[Quizmonster]

To be honest, $~Jeep~$, this name-similarity between Quizmonkey and Quizmonster is becoming a bit tiresome in the abbreviated form of 'QM'. I keep on being confused as to whether I'm being referred to or not and sometimes wonder whether Alzheimer's has set in...with me, that is!
On a previous such occasion, I jokingly suggested that - as I suspected I'd been around AnswerBank for longer - people might refer to me as 'QM1' and my near-namesake as 'QM2'. (Of course, i'm far from certain that I was the earlier ABer, so I have no objection to being QM2! Must get in touch with the ABED and find out.)
Whatever...my comment was certainly not designed to make you feel stupid. Cheers

[kazza12345]

you don't need abed to tell you, just look at when you joined, and ask qm the other when he joined.
Anyway i got lost around the gerundives.
All i can contribute to this is that it just dosen't sound right really, except in the meaning of someone else sat here there to say "she was sat on the floor" I dont think "she is sat on the floor "sounds any more right either.
To summarize, on planet kazza12345 we would never hear she was sat on the floor

[Quizmonster]

Ah, yes, Kazza, I'm well aware of that, but what if either of us claims an untrue joining-date in order specifically to be QM1? (This is a joke, by the way.)

[joko]

either is preferable to " I was sat sitting on the floor" as I have heard...

[THECORBYLOON]

QM and Quizmonkey, the answer is for both of yous to post the dates you joined, at a pre-arranged time. That in turn, would mean synchronizing watches and an atomic clock (if you look in the glory-hole you'll find one.) How about 11.59 GMT 22.7.06?

[Quizmonster]

Ah, yes, TCL, the 'High Noon' aspect of that has its appeal...but either or both of us might be tempted to write "June 14th 1978". (The fact that that may be decades before AnswerBank even existed is neither here nor there.)
But this is getting silly! My apologies, Annie, for having hijacked your thread for this.

[THECORBYLOON]

As I was saying to Tony Blair yesterday, I have assumed that both being upstanding members of the AB Community, honesty would not have come into it.