Both are correct?

Not at all equivalent. By the way, for someone who seems interested in the correct use of English, i find it odd that you use "Cos." The word is because, and it is abbreviated as 'cause. "Cos" is not a word, it is an internet usage, and indicative of extreme ignorance, or a dedication to the trendy "words" popular among adolescents, many of whom are masking a profound ignorance of spelling, usage and grammar.

"I found the area where i live got power cut" is an acceptable form of casual spoken English. If it were put into a formal, written sentence, it would read: "I found that the area where i live had gotten the power cut (off)." (The use of the word "off" is optional--"power cut" just has a sound of informality not commensurate with proper construction.)

"I found the area where i live get power cut." is not only incorrect, it would be a glaring error even to the most clueless native speaker of English. It sounds like the sort of error the non-native speaker would make. The opening of the sentence reads: "I found . . . " and therefore suggests the the loss of power occurred before you discovered it. Therefore, one says the power was cut, or had gotten cut, using the past tense to describe an event which occurred before you discovered it. "Get" is the present tense--that is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Frankly, both sentences sound stilted -- although #2 is clearly incorrect.

The sentence would best be written:

I found they had cut off the power in the area where I live.

Putting the "..in the area where I live" after the "I found" results in a passive voice construction that probably is best avoided.

Thanks Setanta and Frank Apisa.
I feel Setanta's explanation is very clear. Frank Apisa criticized the both of my sentences were "stilted". If so, is the setanta's rewriting -- "I found that the area where i live had gotten the power cut (off)."-- stilted too?

Hi Oristar, I'm glad to see you back and posting again. No, the sentence isn't stilted.

Alright, Roberta.
Still, I'd like to hear what Frank Apisa will answer...

Okay, Oristar. BTW, all right is two words, never one. :-)

Definition from AHD:

Alright (non-standard) = all right.

Yes. Very!



Calling the sentence "stilted" was not meant as an insult, Oristar -- just as an observation in response to your asking for help on this issue.

If you have access to an English teacher, you might try asking the following question of that person:

Which of the following three sentences best communicates the notion being offered

1)"I found the area where I live got power cut."

2) "I found that the area where i live had gotten the power cut (off)."

3) "I found they had cut off the power in the area where I live."

My guess is the English teacher will choose #3.

Or a fourth option, try dropping got and replace it.
"I found the area where I live had the power cut."

Got just sounds awkward and is really the wrong verb. You would say I got a bike, or got a disease - something you attain/recieve. Using 'Had' implies ownership was lost. It's really based on personal preference but I would not use the word got.

mmm i agree both are very awkward and clunky and not at all correct in English English

It would be the area 'had a power cut'

I agree with Ceili.

and BTW, The only way "get" would be OK in such a sentence would be:
I found THAT the area where I live getS power cutS OFTEN. (That is to say, "Power cuts happen often in the area where I live. I found that out after I had lived there a while.")

ps to Roberta, I commiserate, but M-W online says "alright" is all right...

I won't use it, and you won't, but I think we have to let oristar ...

For what its worth, Oristar, i consider that Frank is nitpicking. You'll perhaps recall that i said your sentence is acceptable in spoken English. As we never know what the larger context is, i found the expression of the idea acceptable. Others here have noted that the use of the verb "to get" is perhaps not the best way of expressing this. In written English, the idea could be better expressed.

In conversation, however, it is acceptable. And, without knowing the context, it is simple arrogance to characterize the sentence as stilted. For example:

She: "They say that there were power failures during the storm"

He: "I found the area where i live got power cut."

In that use, you emphasize the area where you live, simply suggesting that were the case where you live, without knowing what happened elsewhere. I'm sure you know that written language is always a little more demanding, and inflexible than the spoken variety.

This may be a bit off point, but it is interesting nonetheless.

In his last post, Setanta wrote:



In his original post, Setanta wrote:



Setanta is always good for a laugh!



By the way, Ceili, I hope you realize that I did remove the word "got" from my suggestion for a better way of phrasing the comment.

Frank, the use of "they" in "I found they had cut off the power in the area where I live." is also incorrect. A pronoun should not be used without an antecedent (or something, in this case, specifying who "they" are). Since there is no definite personification from which to source the pronoun, then using a definitive entity would be a much better choice. Perhaps this might be what an English teacher would suggest:

"I found the electric company had cut off the power in the area where I live."

To add a trivial note, "found" could also be disputed (though I have no problem with it). Some might say "discovered" or "realized" might be a better choice -- though to find and to discover are basically the same.

Another trivial note would be other options about the dependant clause "where I live." It can be used, along with any clause (either dependant or independent) or prepositional phrase in the adverb specifying where the power had been cut.


I don't intend seem overly critical, I really don't have a problem with using "they" in your original sentence. But I am annoyed severely by the growing overuse of general pronouns especially when people refer to several individuals or groups. It only adds confusion, and very poorly conveys any message intended.


And Setana, you're also correct. The usage would be acceptable in conversational English, as awkward as it sounds.

Over all, if I was asked to re-write the sentence, I would have to change it to "I found the power had been cut (off) where I live." This does, of course, still keep optional words in parenthases. It eliminated the awkwardness of "got", or a form of to get in the place of to be or to become. There is also no longer a need to struggle with who had cut the power, especially since if power is cut most people assume the act had been accomplished by the power company. Another wide assumption is that if the electricity had been shut off by someone other than the correct authority, the speaker or writer would have noted it as such. And to mention something which does not need to be mentioned, the words power and electricity can be interchanged in this case.

As a last point, yes. I am being nitpicky over this. It only goes to show that there are many correct ways to say the same thing, and some ways may not be as correct in certain situations.

Glad you are amused Frank. In that there would be almost no way to determine in speaking if one were saying 'cause or cos--it should be obvious that i was referring to written English. Of course, i am always amused by you as well, and your apparent inability to recognize simple and obvious distinctions.

Frank, don't punch buddy. I was offering an option not making any comments on previous posts.
I rarely use 'got' in my day to day speech and it occured to me, this is one of those words - depending on where you are from, you may or may not use a lot.
I have noticed, "Got" is used much more in the States as sort of an accepted slang. So who am I to judge.

I ain't got ...
We got married.
blah blah blah

Get someone to read my post to you, Setanta, and perhaps to explain it to you. Obviously you are not capable of understanding the English language.

I was not talking about the 'cause or cos -- I was talking about the fact that you characterized my use of the word "stilted" as arrogant...

...when you had used "extreme ignorance" "trendy words popular among adolescents, and "profound ignorance in your post.

And I am glad you are glad that I am amused. But especially I am glad that you are so amusing.

In fact, I am laughing right now!

Me too, Boss, yer a hoot . . .


heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

okbye

What's this, an argument about English and I haven't been invited?

I disagree. (Groucho Marx)

Or maybe it was "I'm against it!"