Re: USAGE: gotten

Two messages in one to keep list traffic down.

On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 23:14, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> Quoting Tristan McLeay <kesuari@...>:
>
> > On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 21:05, Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> > > Quoting Tristan McLeay <kesuari@...>:
> > >
> > > > I was just installing Windows XP today and happened to notice that it
> > > > said 'If you've had a computer before, you've probably GOTTEN things
> > > > the way you like it', or some-such like that (the actual wording isn't
> > > > important, 'gotten' there is being used in the same way as it was on
> > > > the banner).
> > > >
> > > > 'Gotten' there seems wrong to me (and my younger brother, who generally
> > > > speaks more Americanly than I do). Is that some usage of 'gotten' that
> > > > hasn't (yet) passed into Australian English, or is it ungrammatical in
> > > > the US too and just somehow managed to slip through?
> > >
> > > Almost all varieties of American English have two functionally distinct
> > > past participles of the verb <get>:  <got>, which is homophonous with
> > > the preterite form, and <gotten> which is not.  The former is used only
> > > when "I've got (to)" is equivalent to "I have" or "I must". In all other
> > > circumstances, <gotten> is used.
> >
> > Umm... so that means that I'm right and WinXP was wrong? (Because 'You
> > probably have things the way you like it' is correct?)
>
> The sense I get from the sentence you quoted was equivalent to "have"
> in the sense of "to have something done". This has neither the
> lexical meaning of "to possess" that "I've got" does, nor the modal
> meaning of "must" that "I've got to" does.  Based on the criterion I
> mentioned, "gotten" should be licit for Americans then.
Okay. I think I was confused: seeing 'I have' and 'I must', I assumed
they were both in the more grammatical senses. Anyway, it still sounds
wrong to me, but I'm no judge on someone else's dialect.

> (Also good to note is that in a country with about 260 million
> English speakers, there's bound to be some variation in a grammatical
> feature like this.)
True, true.

> No, I've gotten* you pegged as from Australia.  With the newer members
> of the list, though, it's not always easy to tell their place of
> origin.
Yeah, I'm Australian.

> *(This came out spontaneously.)
And also sounds wrong to me. But I know that I have heard 'gotten' used
without it sounding wrong. America must've imported some uses of 'got'
and Australia some uses of 'gotten', but not such that they co-incide.
And no, I can't think of an example where 'gotten' sounds right to me,
remembering I don't (normally) use the word. You could try throwing some
at me if you cared enough :)

> > Which reminds me: does 'whilst' get misused in the US? I've noticed it
> > appears to have become somewhat trendy down here and people are just
> > using it as a direct synonym for 'while' in all circumstances.
>
> In my experience <whilst> is nonexistent in American English unless
> you're trying to affect a false Shakespearean accent.
It ought to not be used here in Australia too... At least using 'while'
all the time means you avoid things like:

        I have witnessed phones being used in the following     circumstances
        [Most of list snipped]
        - whilst driving
        - at a retail store, whilst I am trying to be served.
(From
<http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=21324&p=1#r6>.)

The first example I've included sounds okay to me, the second sounds
broken. I have no idea of the difference.

------

On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 23:23, Tim May wrote:

> That's not what it's saying, though*.  It's suggesting that you have,
> in the past, carried out actions which resulted in things being the
> way you like it, you've got(ten) them into that state.  "You probably
> have things the way you like it" is about the state of things, not
> about your past labours in effecting that state.
Could be. Not a distinction I usually think about.

> Incidentally, it seems a little odd to me that they used "it"
> referring to "way" rather than "them" referring to "things".
Hmm... either way. 'It' is simpler... And as I said, my quote wasn't
necessarily exact.

Tristan.