zompist bboard

Prescriptivists and English teachers might cringe when they see "I seen" (though I'd bet my bottom dollar they've used it more than once in speech) but for the rest of us, this is a pretty common, albeit mostly unnoticed, verb form we use in speech (and maybe someday in writing, too). But what will we call this form grammatically? Obviously it's a participle shortened from the present perfect I have seen/I've seen but when the auxiliary is dropped altogether, is it still in the purest sense the present perfect? Since we still have a myriad of present perfects formed with the auxiliary where it is not dropped (such as where there is no other way to distinguish the simple past from the perfects without the auxiliary), and only a few where it is (seen/done/been), what do we do with this new form? Does this just become marked forever as an irregular verb conjugation: I see, I saw, I seen, I had seen, etc. with margin notes about how the auxiliary is dropped? Or do we develop new terminology for these present perfects where the auxiliary is dropped?

You'd have to find the semantic context in which it is actually used. So get crackin, get a corpus together mang.

Goatface wrote:You'd have to find the semantic context in which it is actually used. So get crackin, get a corpus together mang.

Oh Lord, I don't want to write a research paper but there are so many ways. AFAIK it is only ever used to refer to the present perfect so it is never a replacement for the simple past I saw.

whenever i've seen or heard it it has been a replacement for "i saw". analogical levelling and all that (why should we have a distinct participle form for only a few verbs?). i recognize that america may be different, but you know, this sounds like a claim you need to substantiate.

I know someone who never says "saw", it's always "seen". I also remember her saying "used to could" once.

"I seen" seems to me a bad way to say/write "I've seen".

Izambri wrote:"I seen" seems to me a bad way to say/write "I've seen".

Well, from a prescriptivist point of view, that's exactly what it is.

However, I honestly don't think I've ever produced this, nor am I sure I've actually encountered it in the wild from a native speaker. Is it an Americanism?

I hear it every once in a while (here in the US), even though I do not have it natively myself, and tend to hear I seen as being I've seen but with the /v/ elided.

I've heard that, and I've even heard /si:nt/, but that's even more rare. It seems to be a regularized past tense form, but 'seen' is taken as the actual underlying root.

There seem to be a couple of dubious assumptions in Viktor's post:

a. that "I seen" is actually common though held back by "prescriptivists"

b. that any given nonstandard form will eventually be incorporated in the standard

(b) is just wrong; a form can stay nonstandard for centuries, and may disappear rather than achieving respectability.

To decide what exactly "I seen" is doing we'd have to ask a native speaker of a variety that has it.

I wouldn't be shocked if a phonetician told me I wasn't pronouncing the v in fast speech. [vs] is pretty awkward and changing it to [fs] or [s:] isn't surprising. In fact when I try to say it fast, it seems that the /v/ often ends up as a lip gesture that may not have much acoustic impact, though I don't think it gets down to a simple [s].

It is not always simply a case of eliding /v/ in quick speech though, which I'm pretty sure a lot of us do, even if we don't realize it. For people like the friend I mentioned, "I seen" has entirely replaced "I saw" as the simple past tense. This is pretty obvious because she uses "I seen" in places where present perfect would be unnatural, e.g. "I seen him yesterday." Also, this only occurs for "see" and is not a universal rule of past participle replacing past tense (for instance, she doesn't say "I eaten").

Dewrad wrote:

Izambri wrote:"I seen" seems to me a bad way to say/write "I've seen".

Well, from a prescriptivist point of view, that's exactly what it is.

However, I honestly don't think I've ever produced this, nor am I sure I've actually encountered it in the wild from a native speaker. Is it an Americanism?

No, it's very common in Scotland too.

Other examples include "I've went".

I don't have it, but my father did - he was full of ruralisms, eggcorns, and odd turns of phrase - and I grew up finding it funny but not strange. After I had gained some knowledge of linguistics I started paying more attention, and at one time I had a list going in my head of things he'd said. I wish I'd written them down. But it was clear to me that he had three distinct forms, "see", "seen", and "have seen", which as far as I could tell occurred exactly where you'd expect "see", "saw", and "have seen" respectively.

And at least for him, dropping [v] before [s] would not explain many of the things he said where there was other material between - "I just seen it", things like that.

Radius Solis wrote:But it was clear to me that he had three distinct forms, "see", "seen", and "have seen", which as far as I could tell occurred exactly where you'd expect "see", "saw", and "have seen" respectively.

it could be that "I have seen" is being reanalyzed solely as an emphatic form like "I did see". Did he ever say "I did seen it"? "Done seen it"?

finlay wrote:

Dewrad wrote:

Izambri wrote:"I seen" seems to me a bad way to say/write "I've seen".

Is it an Americanism?

No, it's very common in Scotland too.Other examples include "I've went".

Where did "gone" go? Or "did"? And is this emphatic or simple past?

These are nothing more than regularization of the verbs from three distinct forms to two:

see - saw - seen see - seen - seen
go - went - gone go - went - went

This makes them analogous to regular verbs, e.g.
talk - talked - talked

It's facilitated by the fact that the past tense and past participles have the same number of syllables (unlike eat - ate - eaten)

Some verbs are in transition, and both are considered correct, e.g. prove - proved - proven/proved

Some verbs have completed the transition, and the past participle is now considered archaic and/or specialized:

work - worked - wrought work - worked - worked
melt - melted - molten melt - melted - melted

Then there's also get - got - got/gotten, which is a mess. I use both "got" and "gotten" as past participles, depending on the meaning. When it is equivalent to "have" I use got, e.g. "I've got $20," or "You've got to stop doing that," but otherwise I use "gotten", e.g. "I've gotten used to it."

Radius Solis wrote:And at least for him, dropping [v] before [s] would not explain many of the things he said where there was other material between - "I just seen it", things like that.

I didn't at all mean to suggest that eliding the v is what everyone does.

clawgrip wrote:These are nothing more than regularization of the verbs from three distinct forms to two:

see - saw - seen see - seen - seen
go - went - gone go - went - went

This makes them analogous to regular verbs, e.g.
talk - talked - talked

It's facilitated by the fact that the past tense and past participles have the same number of syllables (unlike eat - ate - eaten)

Some verbs are in transition, and both are considered correct, e.g. prove - proved - proven/proved

Some verbs have completed the transition, and the past participle is now considered archaic and/or specialized:

work - worked - wrought work - worked - worked
melt - melted - molten melt - melted - melted

Then there's also get - got - got/gotten, which is a mess. I use both "got" and "gotten" as past participles, depending on the meaning. When it is equivalent to "have" I use got, e.g. "I've got $20," or "You've got to stop doing that," but otherwise I use "gotten", e.g. "I've gotten used to it."

Ok, this makes the most sense. And this supports my belief that "seen" will become a regularised form of speech. If we can regularise wrought (although this is somewhat inaccurate as wrought is truly the participle of wreak but nonetheless the point stands), and we certainly did that within the last two centuries, then I see no reason to reject "seen" here. Unlike "gone" and "been" where there is perhaps more of a resistance since they are more commonly used verbs, "seen" goes unnoticed. I hear it all the time, and if I'm not watching myself I use it, too. Of course this is 100% conjecture because I have no way of substantiating it, but I would bet that "seen" in this form will be commonplace and accepted within this century.

This makes more sense too, leaving the auxiliary in place, so it works well within the confines of English grammar.

Radius Solis wrote:I don't have it, but my father did - he was full of ruralisms, eggcorns, and odd turns of phrase - and I grew up finding it funny but not strange. After I had gained some knowledge of linguistics I started paying more attention, and at one time I had a list going in my head of things he'd said. I wish I'd written them down. But it was clear to me that he had three distinct forms, "see", "seen", and "have seen", which as far as I could tell occurred exactly where you'd expect "see", "saw", and "have seen" respectively.

My partner's father is the exact same way. I always thought it odd because my partner doesn't reserve any of his ruralisms in his speech, nor do his sisters, nor his wife, it's uniquely him, and it's just bizarre. It even extends to his pronunciation, but none of it extends to his children.

Viktor77 wrote:Ok, this makes the most sense. And this supports my belief that "seen" will become a regularised form of speech. If we can regularise wrought (although this is somewhat inaccurate as wrought is truly the participle of wreak but nonetheless the point stands), and we certainly did that within the last two centuries, then I see no reason to reject "seen" here. Unlike "gone" and "been" where there is perhaps more of a resistance since they are more commonly used verbs, "seen" goes unnoticed. I hear it all the time, and if I'm not watching myself I use it, too. Of course this is 100% conjecture because I have no way of substantiating it, but I would bet that "seen" in this form will be commonplace and accepted within this century.

This makes more sense too, leaving the auxiliary in place, so it works well within the confines of English grammar.

Actually wrought is the past participle of work. Wrought iron, for example, is iron that someone has produced through metalworking, not by inflicting vengeance. However, both work and wreak originally come from the same root.

Not something I would ever, ever say.

Only thing I can think of is Northern. c.f. Alan Shearer's trouble trying to remember to say "what they did" rather than "what they done" - pretty sure I've heard a "what they seen" from him at some point.

Viktor77 wrote:

Radius Solis wrote:I don't have it, but my father did - he was full of ruralisms, eggcorns, and odd turns of phrase - and I grew up finding it funny but not strange. After I had gained some knowledge of linguistics I started paying more attention, and at one time I had a list going in my head of things he'd said. I wish I'd written them down. But it was clear to me that he had three distinct forms, "see", "seen", and "have seen", which as far as I could tell occurred exactly where you'd expect "see", "saw", and "have seen" respectively.

My partner's father is the exact same way. I always thought it odd because my partner doesn't reserve any of his ruralisms in his speech, nor do his sisters, nor his wife, it's uniquely him, and it's just bizarre. It even extends to his pronunciation, but none of it extends to his children.

Kids don't (usually) learn their language habits from their parents Vikky, they learn it from their friends.

Salmoneus wrote:Not something I would ever, ever say.

Shocking!

Viktor77 wrote:Prescriptivists and English teachers might cringe when they see "I seen" (though I'd bet my bottom dollar they've used it more than once in speech) but for the rest of us, this is a pretty common, albeit mostly unnoticed, verb form we use in speech (and maybe someday in writing, too).

This construction is common here in Oregon--it simply equates to "I saw." But it's distinctly associated with a low level of education. I'm surprised to hear that your teachers, and you even, use it.

clawgrip wrote:I also remember her saying "used to could" once.

I've become quite fond of these SAE auxiliary chains, like "might could," "might should" and use them rather often.

clawgrip wrote:Actually wrought is the past participle of work. Wrought iron, for example, is iron that someone has produced through metalworking, not by inflicting vengeance. .

Yes, and "What hath God wrought?", the first message sent through the telegraph = "What has God worked?"

Shm Jay wrote:

clawgrip wrote:Actually wrought is the past participle of work. Wrought iron, for example, is iron that someone has produced through metalworking, not by inflicting vengeance. .

Yes, and "What hath God wrought?", the first message sent through the telegraph = "What has God worked?"

Yes. What hath God "1. Put together; created, e.g. a carefully wrought plan."

I'm not sure why you're arguing this. Try looking it up.

I'm not arguing it; I'm agreeing with you and giving everyone a famous example of its usage.