I'm not against all American linguistic imports. Lately, I have begun to use "I have gotten" instead of "I have got". It just sounds better and, I think it's important to distinguish the preterite (I got) from the present perfect (I have gotten).One of the things which doesn't help is the manner in which some UK newspapers Americanise much of their output in order to garner traffic in the US.
Here's an example from the Mail:
I'm going to be a total pedant here and point out that panini is plural.if i order a Salmon panini and an almond croissant in my local coffee shop....i must pronounce the silent L or be stared at blankly
Good question. Maybe the use of the present perfect gives the whole story a sort of breaking-newsy, this-is-happening-now feel.In Australia, it is not uncommon to hear people pronounce pronunciation pronounce-ee-ayshen. Which a certain Ms. Morrisette probably wouldn't have called ironic as she clearly doesn't understand the word's meaning.
Also, Police have their own special way of speaking to the press. Instead of saying "The suspect broke into an adjoining property and assaulted the owner" they'll say "The suspect has broken into an adjoining property and has assaulted the owner." Does anyone know the correct term for this abomination?
The verb "to sit" always did have that transitive side to it. So, for a example one can say that "The father sat the toddler in the cot". But it's clear who is performing the verb and whom the verb is being performed on - the direct object. That's what you need for a transitive verb.I don't see the issue.
Sit has become transitive. So of course you can be sat down in the same way you can sit yourself somewhere.
Interesting point. I have a theory related to this that I might do a thread on.(Of course it was quite common in earlier forms of the language for a vowel difference to separate intransitive and causative/transitive forms of a verb, hence lie => lay, sit => set drip => drop rise => raise).