# be seated vs be sat



## Xander2024

Hello everyone,

Do the natives here see any difference between the two constructions:

They were sat at a table.
They were seated at a table.

I came across the first one more than once while reading an American movie script. Are they interchangeable?

Thank you so much


----------



## Copyright

First impressions:
*They were sat at a table. *(Someone told them to sit at a table.)
*They were seated at a table.* (They were seated at a table.)

It is barely possible in my world that #1 can mean #2, but it would depend on what era or mood it was said in.


----------



## Xander2024

Yes, Copyright, "They were sat at a table" does sound like they were made to sit at a table, but as far as I can remember, there was no compulsion whatsoever. The "they" were a mafia family

Thank you.


----------



## Copyright

Of course the real meaning depends on more than my personal preferences -- such as the author's.  If by "sat" the author obviously means "were seated," I would be happy enough to accept that. Especially if they're in the Mafia.


----------



## Xander2024

I just thought "to be sat" was some kind of AmE. Now I see it is not.

Thank you.


----------



## natkretep

Are you sure the scriptwriter is American? In British usage, 'They were sat at the table' can mean 'They were seated at the table' or 'They were sitting at the table'.

Have a look at these threads:
"We were sat" -- a new UK trend?
we were sat in this nice restaurant
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=509969Sitting vs sat
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=891844


----------



## Xander2024

I'm sure it was a movie script. But as most of the scripts I read are of "Hollywood origin" I presumed it was an American one. Now that you've said it is British usage, a kind of suspicion is creeping in...

Thank you so much, Natkretep.


----------



## pob14

I don't represent all of the US, but I think "they were sat at a table" is ungrammatical.  Regional dialect, perhaps:  "they were sat at a table, then they et their supper."  But certainly not standard.


----------



## Xander2024

Have a look at the threads Natkretep has given, Pob. I guess that's strictly British.

Thank you.


----------



## pob14

Xander2024 said:


> Have a look at the threads Natkretep has given, Pob. I guess that's strictly British.
> 
> Thank you.


Note to self:  follow links before replying.


----------



## dreamlike

Hi everyone,

the following sentence's been written by a native speaker of English who comes from Manchester:
_
I *will be sat* outside the Irish Pub.

_I was a bit surprised on reading this sentence, because normally I'd expect_ 'I will be sitting outside the Donkey pub at 8 am...'. 
_Is 'will be sat' a regional form, one that is commonly found in that part of England? Would you write it off as incorrect, or just regional?


----------



## natkretep

Dreamlike, I've merged your thread (post 11) with an earlier thread, and there are some relevant links in post 6.

I don't think this is specifically Manchester. I've heard it in many varieties of BrE.


----------



## dreamlike

Thanks, Nat. I have looked for previous treads, but to little avail. In any case, none of the linked threads discusses this usage of 'sat' _in the future tense._.. I suppose you don't find it to be any more strange than saying 'We were sat...', do you?


----------



## ewie

dreamlike said:


> you don't find it to be any more strange than saying 'We were sat...', do you?


It's a verb like any other:
_I'm sat outside Asda
I was sat outside Asda
I'll be sat outside Asda
In another 10 minutes I'll have been sat outside Asda for 9 hours ..._


natkretep said:


> I don't think this is specifically Manchester. I've heard it in many varieties of BrE.


----------



## velisarius

It's very frequently used down south as well, though I did wonder a little about the future tense there.


----------



## dreamlike

I must say that to me, using it in the future tense is a bit over the top...

Thanks for your answers.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

There are many, including me, who wouldn't use *sat *for *sitting* in expressions like *They were sitting at a table*, regarding it as excessively colloquial.

I've heard it often enough.


----------



## dreamlike

Well, it comes as a relief to read such an opinion at last, so far I've only seen people speak highly of it... Some in previous threads called it 'a stylistic variation', that's very convenient, but to me it's more of a thing that people blurt in rapid speech. I've also seen some trying to make a case for it, saying that it makes grammatical sense to say so, mentioning 'a state of sitting'... well, let me just say that it's hardly convincing to me.

All that does not alter the fact that folk use it a lot (from what I read) and will continue to do so.


----------



## ewie

dreamlike said:


> All that does not alter the fact that folk use it a lot (from what I read) and will continue to do so.


That's very generous of you, DL.


----------



## dreamlike

ewie said:


> That's very generous of you, DL.


Thanks, but I'm just stating the facts, not giving my permission (who am I to give or not one?  Last time I checked I wasn't at the helm of the governing body of the English language).  In my experience, substandard forms such as 'be sat' have a great appeal to people. Some call it vivid language.


----------



## skymouse

I've heard some British English speakers say _to be sat at_, and it seems to be a regional variation of _to be sitting at_ (apparently with no passive meaning).

Incidentally, in some contexts _be seated_ means _sit_, for example in some very formal or ritualistic situations you might say "please be seated" instead of "please sit [down]".


----------



## ewie

dreamlike said:


> In my experience, substandard forms such as  'be sat' have a great appeal to people.




I'm sure that in your heart of hearts you meant to say _nonstandard_ rather than _substandard_, DL


----------



## natkretep

I found this usage note in the Oxford Dictionaries site:


> In sentences such as _we were *sat* there for hours_ the use of the past participle *sat* with the verb ‘to be’ is informal and not part of standard English. Originally only in dialect, it is now common in British (though not US) English. Standard English uses the present participle *sitting* in similar contexts, as in _we were *sitting* there for hours_.


And yes _non-standard_ hugely preferred to _sub-standard_​.


----------



## dreamlike

ewie said:


> I'm sure that in your heart of hearts you meant to say _nonstandard_ rather than _substandard_, DL


That's what I wrote initially, but invisible dwarfs changed 'non' to 'sub' without my knowing it.


----------



## sound shift

Apparently there was a character in 'Coronation Street' (which takes us back to the Manchester of post 11 .... all right, Salford, not Manchester, but it's right next door) who said, _I was sat sitting there_.  File under "Even more subnonstandard than _I was sat there_" (which I have been known to say, I admit) or just forget you ever read this.


----------



## dreamlike

Auto-correction at its finest.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Funnily enough, having posted in this thread yesterday afternoon, I came across this sentence today in a Patrick O'Brian novel:*

Behind the green door and some floors up Stephen and Mr Florey were already sat down to a haphazard meal, spread wherever there was room on odd tables and chairs. * Master & Commander Chapter 11.

This doesn't mean that they were already sitting down, of course, because that could mean they were in the act of assuming the posture.  I think this is a genuine past participle, and the villain, if there is one here, is the main verb.


----------



## Pavielpetrovich

"To sit" is an intransitive verb, meaning that you can't sit someone, and you can't be sat by someone. Thus, "They were sat" is gramatically incorrect.

"To seat" is a transitive verb meaning "to put in a seat," so you can seat someone, and you can be seated by someone. "They were seated" is therefore gramatically correct.


----------



## Xander2024

Pavielpetrovich said:


> "To sit" is an intransitive verb, meaning that you can't sit someone, and you can't be sat by someone. Thus, "They were sat" is gramatically incorrect.



You'll probably be surprised if you decide to consult the WRF dictionary and type in "sit". Because Nr 2 reads as follows: *2. (transitive) *to cause to adopt such a posture


----------



## Pavielpetrovich

I am sat corrected.


----------



## Loob

dreamlike said:


> In my experience, substandard forms such as 'be sat' have a great appeal to people. Some call it vivid language.


Dreamlike, that sounds a bit pompous!

"[Be] sat" is common in many varieties of BrE, even if it's not 'standard'.


----------



## velisarius

Are there any British speakers who would use "She was sitting on the sofa" and "She was sat on the sofa" under different circumstances, all other factors being equal (for example speaking in the same informal tone to a group of friends). I'm wondering whether there are nuances of attitude or meaning.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I can't think of any, but put a _down _before the _on_ and I could.


----------



## se16teddy

velisarius said:


> Are there any British speakers who would use "She was sitting on the sofa" and "She was sat on the sofa" under different circumstances, all other factors being equal (for example speaking in the same informal tone to a group of friends). I'm wondering whether there are nuances of attitude or meaning.


 Not sure - you might hear it from a politician trying to sound more proletarian.


----------



## Lazzini

If we consider "I was sat" to be a correct alternative form of "I was sitting", why not "I was walked along the road" instead of "I was walking ...",&nbsp; "I was bought ..." instaed of "I was buying ..." etc. ?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Lazzini said:


> If we consider "I was sat" to be a correct alternative form of "I was sitting", why not "I was walked along the road" instead of "I was walking ...",&nbsp; "I was bought ..." instaed of "I was buying ..." etc. ?


Hi Lazzini,

Language isn't like that, but I take your point.


----------



## ewie

Thomas Tompion said:


> This doesn't mean that they were already sitting down, of course, because that could mean they were in the act of assuming the posture.  I think this is a genuine past participle, and the villain, if there is one here, is the main verb.


Could you elaborate, Mr T ~ I don't see what you mean


----------



## wandle

I was taught at an early stage in my education that 'to be sat (at a table etc.)' was incorrect and vulgar.
The correct form instead of 'sat' in such contexts is 'seated'. 'Sat' is correct as the active past participle, but not the passive past participle.
'To be sitting' is also correct English, but is different in meaning. 

Imagine my shock at reading in the press a statement by a judge (a former classmate of mine) that the convicted man was 'the rotten apple sat in the Revenue'.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Here goes, Mr E:

It reads - *Behind the green door and some floors up Stephen and Mr Florey were  already sat down to a haphazard meal, spread wherever there was room on  odd tables and chairs.*

Had it read - *Behind the green door and some floors up Stephen and Mr Florey were  already sitting down to a haphazard meal, spread wherever there was room on  odd tables and chairs*, I would have taken that to mean that they were in the act of taking their chairs.

The original, *were sat down...*, means they were seated.

I think some people might have expected *had sat down* here, hence my point about the verb being 'the villain'.

I was making the point that some people, and I'm one of them, aren't very happy to say* they were sat eating*, but are happy with *they were sat down eating*, or, with a quite different sense of course, *they had sat down*.  Strange isn't it.


----------



## ewie

Thomas Tompion said:


> Here goes, Mr E:


Ta, I'm with you now


----------



## Einstein

I see "sat" in these cases as a regional variation. I don't think I've heard it in my region (SE), but I find it perfectly acceptable.





> If we consider "I was sat" to be a correct alternative form of "I was sitting", why not "I was walked along the road" instead of "I was walking ...",&nbsp; "I was bought ..." instead of "I was buying ..." etc. ?


I don't see any analogy between "I was sitting" and "I was buying". The object in the shop was bought, I wasn't. But we can say "I sat my child on the green chair", so that he was "sat" there, as a passive. By extension "to be sat" means also "to be in a sitting position".


----------



## dreamlike

Loob said:


> Dreamlike, that sounds a bit pompous!



Sorry, that wasn't my intention. I just much prefer standard English to its regional variations, which, I must say, have a certain appeal, because they show how diverse English is, but can be quite confusing... for instance, when I first thought 'We were sat a...t' I thought 'Who made you seat there? Whose decision it was?'. I didn't take it to simply mean 'We were sitting at...'.


----------



## Amber_1010

Hello!

This has bothered me for so long.
I have heard British people say "I'm sat here.' when they actually mean "I'm sitting here.'
Like, in a song, Drunk, by ed sheeran, it says '_I'm sat here wishing I was sober__I know I'll never hold you like I used to.'
_
I think it should be 'sitting' instead of 'sat'.
I have a British friend, and he once said 'I have been to this park before. I was sat there (he pointed to a chair.)
Again, same problem here.

Is it a mistake? 
But I have heard a guy say native speakers use the passive form in a unusual way to create a distance. I have posted a thread about it. Here's the link:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2746215

But I am guessing it has nothing to do with that. We don't use the passive in that way, that wrong way, do we?
Thanks for telling me what you think.


----------



## Beryl from Northallerton

No, it's not a passive voice. No-one positioned the speaker on that chair in the park. 

They were simply sitting there, and this is probably what they should have said, because I'm sure it's what they meant. 

I think it's an aberrant (BrE?) grammatical form, but one that's so prevalent that I'm sure it must have its own name. I look forward to learning it.


----------



## DonnyB

It's an idiomatic use of "sat" instead of "seated" which I'd have said was fairly common in BE colloquial usage - I've even heard it said as "We were sat sitting there...." in fact.


----------



## natkretep

Moderator note: I have merged Amber's thread (from post 43) with an earlier thread on the same question. Please read the earlier posts. Post 6 and Loob's post above also points to other threads on this question. _To be sat_ is now fairly well established in (informal) BrE.


----------



## Tegs

natkretep said:


> _To be sat_ is now fairly well established in (informal) BrE.



I've just come across "to be sat" in a BBC news article. I was surprised to see it there, so I wonder if it's now more acceptable in more formal contexts, such as the news.

"Instead, he is sat in his home for the fourth day in a row." LGBT in Afghanistan: 'I could be killed on the spot'

I just thought it would be worth adding this instance of usage to the thread.


----------



## ewie

See post #38 above, Tegs: I reckon a judge easily trumps a BBC newswriter in the formality rankings.


----------



## Tegs

wandle said:


> reading in the press a statement by a judge


Ah yes, also in the news, and indeed, a person working in a profession known for its formality. I hadn't spotted that - thanks!


----------

