3 ms·
I have to agree. I was going to say, just plain grammatically incorrect. At first I though this had to be a truncation for the purpose of the HN subject line,
by johnea 1y ago
I have to agree.
I was going to say, just plain grammatically incorrect.
At first I though this had to be a truncation for the purpose of the HN subject line, but no, it's the actual title of the article.
Could this be a difference between English and American?
- jjtheblunt 1y agoIt’s incompetence, Or it’s purposeful (“think different”) to get attention, Or It’s a shout out to a common slang where past participles (gotten) get used in place of simple past tense (“I seen this before” which should be “I saw this before”) but here is the other swap, the simple past "got" used where the past participle "gotten" belongs.
- andoando 1y agoLanguages change, get over it. "Proper" language is directly the result of the same things that you're complaining about happening over and over again. If we actually stuck to a perfect defined grammer, language would never evolve
- jjtheblunt 1y agoI've got years of linguistics background, nothing to get over here. The interesting thing you may or may not know is that this use of a past participle for a simple past actually has become normalized, in the languages change sense, in Russian, for one example. In English, it's usually less educated or second language acquisition speakers who make that substitution.
- andoando 1y agoYeah, so what? English itself has been shaped by speakers of various languages in its entire history, and native dialectics do this kind of thing all the time too
- jjtheblunt 1y agoYes, of course.
- antognini 1y agoIt's a British vs. American difference. Americans prefer "gotten": "California has gotten good at building batteries." The British view "gotten" as ungrammatical.