I would also not be shocked to see -- very colloquially -- "I like pettin's." (Note, however, that the apostrophe is the one from "don't" not the one from "Firecat's"! -- the root word is "pettings.")
This has been bugging me for years. Otherwise perfectly articulate and literate people use "pet" as the past tense and as the participle. I have no idea where that comes from. It always makes me think that there must be a lost verb, "peet," that's some specialized form of scritching.
That was pretty much my take on it, too. Anything written in the first person can get away, grammatically, with just about anything, especially if the narrator isn't expected to be a master of the language.
That said, I think "be petted" is correct, and "be pet" is acceptable in colloquial speech.
I would only expect to see the first if it was either some sort of dialect or else some kind of tiny magical animal that would ride around curled behind/around your ear keeping a running commentary going.
I've never heard anybody use "pet" that way. Are they like my cow-orkers (of multiple ethnic groups) who refuse to use past participles of irregular verbs?
"I had went to the store yesterday, as I have did every day after work for the last week. I had saw that the store had a different item on sale each day. On Friday, they were out of the advertised item, and I have sang the blues ever since."
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 12:43 am (UTC)Gabriel says . . .
Date: 11 Jan 2008 12:53 am (UTC)Re: Gabriel says . . .
Date: 11 Jan 2008 12:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 01:22 am (UTC)("petted" sounds correct to me, not "pet")
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 01:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 05:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 01:49 am (UTC)Mostly I think it's wrong, though, so that's what I checked. I certainly wouldn't use it myself.
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 02:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 02:18 am (UTC)P.
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 07:43 am (UTC)*snrch*
"to stroke with a cup of very strong coffee"?
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 11:39 pm (UTC)P.
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 10:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 08:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 11:41 pm (UTC)But why not "get," then? I like to be potten behind the ears.
You know, I'm not at all sure that I do.
P.
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 02:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 02:51 am (UTC)That said, I think "be petted" is correct, and "be pet" is acceptable in colloquial speech.
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 03:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 06:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 12 Jan 2008 02:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 12 Jan 2008 04:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 07:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 04:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 05:30 pm (UTC)She massaged me --- I like to be massaged.
She scratched me --- I like to be scratched.
Seems like "petted" is the correct form for this tense.
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 09:49 pm (UTC)"I had went to the store yesterday, as I have did every day after work for the last week. I had saw that the store had a different item on sale each day. On Friday, they were out of the advertised item, and I have sang the blues ever since."
no subject
Date: 11 Jan 2008 09:56 pm (UTC)kthxbye.
Re: English grammar/usage question
Date: 11 Jan 2008 11:40 pm (UTC)actually "pet" sounds wrong even with the correct grammar; that's not the verb i'd expect behind the ears. :) "scritched", "rubbed" would work better.
i seem to recall that some people in minnesota used "pet" instead of "petted" when i lived there. i don't think i heard it anywhere else.
no subject
Date: 12 Jan 2008 02:42 am (UTC)I don't like to be pet. I like to be master.
Hi, I just added you to my LJ friends list.
Date: 27 Jan 2008 07:00 am (UTC)I may have heard 'pet' in Western PA, but not elsewhere.
Re: Hi, I just added you to my LJ friends list.
Date: 27 Jan 2008 08:03 am (UTC)