Generally when I run into a situation where you I am unsure what phrasing would be most correct I find that it so usually better to revise the entire clause or sentence so that the revision avoids the questionable practice in totality.
BillytheImpaler said:The first one is correct. There are two possessions in the sentence and each needs an apostrophe.
greenlizard0 said:Fair, I thought so. Thanks for clearing that up.
Borris said:Your mother is not correct, but neither is she wrong.
By adding -ing to the end of the verb, the word becomes an adjective, and in the case of the OP - The subject, Steve, is thence desribed as sitting.
"Steve was sat" might imply a degree of action - he was made to sit, but it is also a perfectly valid use of the past participle of the verb sit, and the addition of the verb to be (in the form "was") is the use of the progressive aspect.
If your mother requires clarification on either method, I will be glad to mete out the requisite response.
(9ò_ó)-o (°Y°)
BillytheImpaler said:I cannot do so because you are correct.
shifty_uk said:While we're on the subject. I'm sure you cannot start a sentence with and, because or but etc. I constantly see people around the Internet, and even in books doing this.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Oracle said:OK, my mother used to be a teacher and is fairly good at all things english, etc, etc.
We were having a chat the other day and I was telling her about this guy at work. Now, I pride myself on English, especially my ability to spell with minimal errors (if any), and my use (grammatical or otherwise) of the English language (init!) .
In this particular example, I said the following:
"Steve was sat in his chair when............"
My mother corrected me and told me that it should be
"Steve was sitting in his chair when................"
Now, tbh imo lol, I don't really care, as they both sound acceptable, and whilst I appreciate her reasoning, I felt my way was justified as I was talking about a past event.
What do you lot reckon.