“I’ve just seen Dave being kicked out by his missus” works. Maybe it’s regional because [I’ve] just seen the news/the results/the answers/Kelly all sound fine to my ear. But I am a bit of a cockney.
It would definitely be unusual in the various American Englishes that I’m familiar with. “Have seen” is present perfect, and it implies something ongoing (“I have seen The Birdcage over 100 times so far”). “Saw” is the simple past tense, as in “I saw The Birdcage again yesterday.”

It just strikes me very similarly to when a non-proficient English speaker misuses a contraction like “I would like to know what time it’s.”
And honestly, I think language science should be more descriptive than prescriptive in general, and I recognize and respect regional variations. “I seen her yesterday” is a dialect variant you’ll hear in some US regions.
“Just seen” is an example of a participle element of English tenses that doesn’t align with the formal rules of the English language but has become common colloquialism in many English dialects.
The correct tense concept to classify it under is past-present tense. Not past tence or present tence, as it’s talking about a past event from the perspective of the present.
“English doesn’t “borrow” from other languages: it follows them down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar and valuable vocabulary.”
Yeah who formalizes those? French has Academie Francaise which overlooks the language and defines “proper” French but last I checked English has no equivalent.
Just registered on Lemmy at last to pitch in! “I’ve just xyz” is much more common in most Englishes than “I just xyz”, because the present perfect tense implies some connection to the present, hence “present perfect”, and is perfectly correct English. The author has simply omitted “I’ve”, which is common in colloquial speech. This is also common in Dutch, a closely related language that I speak every day as a second language, if that helps legitimise it for anyone: “net gezien” as shorthand for “ik heb net gezien”. In fact, while there are a number of problems with the post, none of them are (“none of them is” for the pedants) grammatical. I assume from the English in your post that it’s not your first language so hopefully this is more helpful than annoying.
While what you’ve said is correct, your application is, unfortunately, incorrect. Once again, the OP did not use the helping verb “have” in front of the pp form of the verb “to see,” which is required. If you would perform a simple search of similar posts in a microblogging format, you will discover that while there is a convention of treating the initial article as implied (“Heard the new Taylor Swift single - amazing!”), there is not a similar established pattern of eliding entire parts of a verb form.
Again, there are similar patterns in other vernaculars. African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in particular uses forms of verbs that differ from those of Standard American English (SAE). AAVE (as well as other English vernaculars such as in the south of Ireland)) use verb forms such as the habitual be (“Mama be doing laundry”) to indicate that the action is performed repeatedly.
In any case, SAE would prefer the standard past tense in this formulation, again with the subject “I” left as implied (“Saw that those nasty Welshmen are acting up again. Fsfafagafacaga!”). It is entirely possible that the author is using a non-standard English vernacular that is perfectly legitimate but with which O am unfamiliar. That’s fine, but it does not decrease the irony of their “Are language is English!!1) post.
And regarding your final sentence, “None of them are” is the more standard formulation in English because it refers to “a number of problems,” which is plural. The singular “none” is reserved for when the meaning is a single exception (“My choice is none of the above, implying that I get to make a single choice).
Hope that helps! Unlike most people, I like the Dutch!
English is my native language; I speak a British dialect and the original post is in British English. “I’ve just xyz” is standard outside American English and omitting “I’ve” is extremely common. I thought I was clear about that. In fact it seems like you haven’t quite paid attention to, or haven’t understood, everything I’ve written, because I quite expressly said I’m not Dutch as well and you seem to think I’m Dutch.
Regarding the is/are thing: you could also say “a number of problems with the post, but one of them is”, and “none” is a short way of saying “not one”, hence “none is”; in fact you’d instinctively say “a number of… but not one of them is”. I’d say “none are” though out of habit. Your “a number is plural” reasoning is overthinking it.
But the verb in question is what “none” is doing, not “a number”, so that’s irrelevant. By analogy: “The singers are performing today, but one of them has a sore throat.” Introducing “one” doesn’t change the number of “singers”; it’s in a new clause. Bringing something irrelevant into it is what I called overthinking in the last comment.
I am saying that if someone is going to be making a point about speaking the right language, a handwritten protest sign stating “Are language is English!! Speak it!!!” doesn’t have that winning feel xenophobes should aim for.
No, but it’s okay. You can just enjoy the warm thrill of confusion.
That is a reference to a lyric by Pink Floyd, from a song called In The Flesh?. It is a track from their popular mega-album The Wall. Pink Floyd is an English rock band that produced some early psychedelic music and transformed into a progressive rock band. The Wall remains a noteworthy album that’s considered one of the greatest of all time. The album covers the story of a rock star whose successes and developing mental issues drive him to wall himself off from the world.
The song in question is In The Flesh? which is the introductory song on the album. It is a good opener and sets the stage for the rest of the album, which unfolds as a coherent musical narrative. You might quite enjoy it if you manage to straight up comprehend it.
“Just saw” is accepted shorthand for “I/we just saw…” “I have seen…” is acceptable if you’re saying that you’ve watched a movie 27 times.
Even substituting in “I just have seen” in the OP doesn’t make grammatical sense to me.
The guy should probably worry more about his own English than other people’s Welsh.
“I’ve just seen Dave being kicked out by his missus” works. Maybe it’s regional because [I’ve] just seen the news/the results/the answers/Kelly all sound fine to my ear. But I am a bit of a cockney.
Those sound find to my maritime Canadian ears.
It would definitely be unusual in the various American Englishes that I’m familiar with. “Have seen” is present perfect, and it implies something ongoing (“I have seen The Birdcage over 100 times so far”). “Saw” is the simple past tense, as in “I saw The Birdcage again yesterday.”  It just strikes me very similarly to when a non-proficient English speaker misuses a contraction like “I would like to know what time it’s.”
And honestly, I think language science should be more descriptive than prescriptive in general, and I recognize and respect regional variations. “I seen her yesterday” is a dialect variant you’ll hear in some US regions.
It was really more about the irony.
“Just seen” is an example of a participle element of English tenses that doesn’t align with the formal rules of the English language but has become common colloquialism in many English dialects.
The correct tense concept to classify it under is past-present tense. Not past tence or present tence, as it’s talking about a past event from the perspective of the present.
“formal rules of the English language” that’s rich.
“English doesn’t “borrow” from other languages: it follows them down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their pockets for loose grammar and valuable vocabulary.”
Yeah who formalizes those? French has Academie Francaise which overlooks the language and defines “proper” French but last I checked English has no equivalent.
How does auto-incorrect go and spell tense both the right and wrong way multiple times in two sentences…
Just registered on Lemmy at last to pitch in! “I’ve just xyz” is much more common in most Englishes than “I just xyz”, because the present perfect tense implies some connection to the present, hence “present perfect”, and is perfectly correct English. The author has simply omitted “I’ve”, which is common in colloquial speech. This is also common in Dutch, a closely related language that I speak every day as a second language, if that helps legitimise it for anyone: “net gezien” as shorthand for “ik heb net gezien”. In fact, while there are a number of problems with the post, none of them are (“none of them is” for the pedants) grammatical. I assume from the English in your post that it’s not your first language so hopefully this is more helpful than annoying.
For reference: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/grammar/online-grammar/present-perfect-simple-with-just-already-and-yet
Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerd!
That’s me! Humourless too!
Welcome!
While what you’ve said is correct, your application is, unfortunately, incorrect. Once again, the OP did not use the helping verb “have” in front of the pp form of the verb “to see,” which is required. If you would perform a simple search of similar posts in a microblogging format, you will discover that while there is a convention of treating the initial article as implied (“Heard the new Taylor Swift single - amazing!”), there is not a similar established pattern of eliding entire parts of a verb form.
Again, there are similar patterns in other vernaculars. African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in particular uses forms of verbs that differ from those of Standard American English (SAE). AAVE (as well as other English vernaculars such as in the south of Ireland)) use verb forms such as the habitual be (“Mama be doing laundry”) to indicate that the action is performed repeatedly.
In any case, SAE would prefer the standard past tense in this formulation, again with the subject “I” left as implied (“Saw that those nasty Welshmen are acting up again. Fsfafagafacaga!”). It is entirely possible that the author is using a non-standard English vernacular that is perfectly legitimate but with which O am unfamiliar. That’s fine, but it does not decrease the irony of their “Are language is English!!1) post.
And regarding your final sentence, “None of them are” is the more standard formulation in English because it refers to “a number of problems,” which is plural. The singular “none” is reserved for when the meaning is a single exception (“My choice is none of the above, implying that I get to make a single choice).
Hope that helps! Unlike most people, I like the Dutch!
English is my native language; I speak a British dialect and the original post is in British English. “I’ve just xyz” is standard outside American English and omitting “I’ve” is extremely common. I thought I was clear about that. In fact it seems like you haven’t quite paid attention to, or haven’t understood, everything I’ve written, because I quite expressly said I’m not Dutch as well and you seem to think I’m Dutch.
Regarding the is/are thing: you could also say “a number of problems with the post, but one of them is”, and “none” is a short way of saying “not one”, hence “none is”; in fact you’d instinctively say “a number of… but not one of them is”. I’d say “none are” though out of habit. Your “a number is plural” reasoning is overthinking it.
“A number” is plural. You would not (I hope) say “A number of people has complained about my English.”
But the verb in question is what “none” is doing, not “a number”, so that’s irrelevant. By analogy: “The singers are performing today, but one of them has a sore throat.” Introducing “one” doesn’t change the number of “singers”; it’s in a new clause. Bringing something irrelevant into it is what I called overthinking in the last comment.
You are truly fortunate not to have that burden.
“Just seen” sounds just fine to my Canadian ear. They’ve omitted the “I’ve” but it doesn’t matter.
The phrase “I just have seen” though sounds choppy and backwards.
Meh
Way to jump to conclusions.
They’re saying the English are killing the Welsh language, not that their grammar is killing English.
I am saying that if someone is going to be making a point about speaking the right language, a handwritten protest sign stating “Are language is English!! Speak it!!!” doesn’t have that winning feel xenophobes should aim for.
I straight up can’t even comprehend what you’re trying to say now.
I think you’ve missed the original posters intent and have just pivoted to some diatribe?
No, but it’s okay. You can just enjoy the warm thrill of confusion.
That is a reference to a lyric by Pink Floyd, from a song called In The Flesh?. It is a track from their popular mega-album The Wall. Pink Floyd is an English rock band that produced some early psychedelic music and transformed into a progressive rock band. The Wall remains a noteworthy album that’s considered one of the greatest of all time. The album covers the story of a rock star whose successes and developing mental issues drive him to wall himself off from the world.
The song in question is In The Flesh? which is the introductory song on the album. It is a good opener and sets the stage for the rest of the album, which unfolds as a coherent musical narrative. You might quite enjoy it if you manage to straight up comprehend it.