I’ve managed to confuse myself - I’m not sure which of these two to use, and my usual trick of repeating them aloud has failed me.

Now, although "gotten" is currently used in spoken language, it’s still not correct in written language, afaik.

"I would have got away with it"

or

"I would have gotten away with it"

Azh
(getting got)

[quote author=azhreia link=board=grammar;num=1121812868;start=0#0 date=07/19/05 at 18:41:08]
Now, although "gotten" is currently used in spoken language, it’s still not correct in written language, afaik.

I wasn’t aware that it is not correct in written language. According to several online dictionaries, either word seems to be acceptable. To me, "gotten" just sounds better, so that’s the one I usually choose to use.

"I would have got away with it"

or

"I would have gotten away with it"

Again, the second one sounds much better to me.

got, gotten  The past participle of get is either got or gotten.  In British English got has come to predominate, while in North America gotten predominates in some constructions and got in others.  Marckwardt 195 points out that in North American English have gotten means that something has been obtained, while have got denotes simple possession:

... the IMF has already gotten pledges for more than $55 billion - E.J. Dinonne, Jr., Commonweal, 16 Jan. 1998

Wise Blood finally came out in England and has gotten good review - Flannery O’Connor, letter, 21 Oct. 1955

I haven’t got a son - Mordecai Richler, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz, 1959

... as long as I have got a chance to win - Dwight D. Eisenhower, quoted in U.S. News & World Report, 16 July 1954

This practice is not absolutely uniform, however:

If you haven’t got your licence yet - James Thurber, letter, 1937

Gotten has been under attack in American handbooks as somehow improper.  Lindley Murray 1795 apparently started the controversy by caling gotten nearly obsolete. It was passing out of use in British English at that time, though it was still being used in the 1820s:

As the Greeks have gotten their loan, they may as well repay mine - Lord Byron, letter, 9 Apr. 1824

Murray’s books were widely used in American schools, and his opinion was adopted by American usage books like Bache 1969 and Ayres 1991; MacCracken & Sandison 1917 called gotten "less acceptable in general" and Jensen 1935 repeated Murray’s judgment that it was obsolete.  One version of this notion, even though it is wrong, persists as recently as Einstein 1985, who insists on got only.  The schoolmastering has perhaps kept got more current than it might have been had natural selection been allowed free play.  Thus we find both got andgotten in use as past participle.  Freeman 1983 says that gotten is preferred to got when there is a notion of progression involved.  This is frequently true:

Squirrels had gotten into the mattress - John Cheever, The Wapshot Chronicle, 1957

... it was recommended that the President not inform Congress until we had gotten the hostages back - Edwin Meese 3d, quoted in The Tower Commission Report, 1987

Have inverstors gotten any smarter ... ? - Jane Bryant Quinn, Newsletter, 31 Jan. 2000

But it is also used where there is no idea of progression:

I had gotten up to go to the men’s room - William Styron, This Quiet Dust and Other Writings, 1982

... explains why your having gotten flu two years ago didn’t protect you against the different strain that arrived this year - Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel, 1997

And got is use both when the notion of progression is present and when it is not:

... in composing my list of guests I haven’t got beyond him and Anne Parrish - Alexander Woollcott, letter, 19 Nov. 1936

Since he has got grown, it’s the races, of course, he likes - Peter Taylor, The Old Forest and Other Stories, 1985

They had then got to the approaches of French Canada - John Cheever, The Wappshot Chronicle, 1957

... until a small group of friends could be got to it still for a few minutes - Russell Lynes, Harper’s, April 1970

... had got word that Tom Bid wanted to meet with him again - Calvin Trillin, New Yorker, 6 Jan. 1986

English speakers in North America seem to use both got and gotten in a way that is almost freely variable.  The observation of Marckwardt is largely true; that of Freman less so.  The learner of English might find it useful to follow their distinction, but the native speaker, will pick whichever form seems more natural at the time.

Brazilian dude

BD, thanks for that, it’s very helpful.

I think that explains where I’ve gotten confused.

In Aus, in the 60s and 70s when I was at school, our usages were very much British and British influenced.

I remember having essays marked down (from an A+++ to just an A+, oh no!) for using colloquial Americanisms which were in context for the parts I was writing.

Consequently I’ve always carried a fear of using the wrong words, particularly when writing.

It’s taken me a long time to give myself permission to start sentences with And or But, which were absolute anathema to English teachers back then, but seem to be acceptable usage now.

Azh
(putting the "author" back into "authority")

Yeah, my schooling was always against starting a sentence with and or but, and it still seems weird seeing them capatalized. And, (shudder), oddly, my schooling was much, (no offense), more recent than yours. How, might i ask, did you pick up American colloquisms in the land-down-under?

J

[quote author=J_22_M link=board=grammar;num=1121812868;start=0#5 date=07/19/05 at 22:24:18]Yeah, my schooling was always against starting a sentence with and or but, and it still seems weird seeing them capatalized.

And, (shudder), oddly, my schooling was much, (no offense), more recent than yours.

I seem to be bracketing you in my mind with my own youngsters, in the early 20s age group. Is that correct?

How, might i ask, did you pick up American colloquisms in the land-down-under?

Books, TV, movies, and because I was good friends with some very nice Americans at the time.

Azh
(insert witty comment *here*)

I prefer gotten as past participle form of get.

But in most cases where it might sound better to say have got, I think it sounds even better to leave out the got altogether.

And J, I’m in my upper 30’s (lol… sounds better than late 30’s), and I’ve had the inclination to start sentences with and and but my entire life.  Well, as long as I could talk, anyway.

-Tim

[quote author=azhreia link=board=grammar;num=1121812868;start=0#6 date=07/19/05 at 22:45:21]

I seem to be bracketing you in my mind with my own youngsters, in the early 20s age group. Is that correct?

A little on the high side.
I’m glad you didn’t associate yourself with mean Americans…because they can be quite mean. And the stereotype seems to be that Aussi women are very nice, as are most Aussie men, unless they have a ponytail or bad skin.. That the vibe from movies, anyway…

J

A similar situation exists with regard to verbs like  beat / beaten and broke / broken. Recently I saw a British publication where the author wrote "The wheat was beat down by the hail" where as it would be more common in North American English to say "beaten down by the hail."  There are still isolated exceptions, however. For example, some Southerners and blue-collar workers might  say "beat" and "broke" for  the past participle. e.g.  ("The Yankees were beat by the Mariners 6 to 2." ; "My radio’s broke." etc.)

I disagree with "beat" as being a British usage for "beaten". It just sounds wrong to me  (that is to say "uneducated, highly colloquial" for those who don’t like to say anything is wrong).

Regarding gotten, I don’t think you would ever hear a British person using the word. Mrs Whale, who is a Kiwi, does use it. I think she had a similar experience to Azhreia in that British "got" was taught, but "gotten" was commonly used in speech.

I agree, Jonah.  You would be just as likely to hear "the wheat was beat down by the hail" from any person here in North America who was used to using that kind of speech (i.e., who was less educated or who didn’t care about using correct grammar).

To me, it sounds wrong.  Some people get upset to hear that.  But you know what?  People do wrong things all the time.  To me, wrong isn’t necessarily bad or evil.

That is to say, I don’t think it has any bearing on the intrinsic value of the person, but it’s still wrong.

-Tim

It, in your opinion, is wrong in standard american english. In a dialect, it might be right. Like double-negation in African american english.

J

Well… unfortunately, the only wrongs that matter, when talking about communication, are the ones that the audience perceives.

So it doesn’t really matter what I think, in relation to what you think.

The simple goal for effective communication should be to minimize the number of perceived wrongs.

-Tim

[quote author=J_22_M link=board=grammar;num=1121812868;start=0#12 date=07/20/05 at 11:13:14]It, in your opinion, is wrong in standard american english. In a dialect, it might be right. Like double-negation in African american english.

Indeed. I try to avoid "wrong" when speaking of variations in grammar or style. "Incorrect" doesn’t sound quite as judgmental. "Non-standard" sounds even better (to me).

Aha, i see. I, personally do prefer the hail was beaten down by the hail. Beaten seems like it should be used with a helping verb, while beat should stand on its own. I beat down the corn. The corn was beaten down by me. I’m not sure if that was said already…

J

But this is where you get into a limbo… When the number of speakers using a ‘non-standard’ form of a word exceeds the number using it in its ‘standard’ form… Who determines when that shift occurs?

‘Wrong’ or ‘incorrect’ says it succinctly and correctly, in my opinion.  But that’s just my opinion.

Something about this discussion reminds me of the "everyone’s a winner" mentality…

-Tim