Spelled or spelt?
Alasdair
Can someone please tell me the correct usage "I have spelled it
correctly" or "I have spelt it correctly"?
--
Alasdair.
Pat Durkin
"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
news:l9f273toj1529o89e...@4ax.com...
>
> Can someone please tell me the correct usage "I have spelled it
> correctly" or "I have spelt it correctly"?
I think that both are correct, but in the US a speaker using "spelt" is
likely to see a few eyebrows raised, since here the irregular pp tends
to be less familiar.
Learnt is in the same boat. "Lit" is probably on its way out, too.
Adam Funk
> Can someone please tell me the correct usage "I have spelled it
> correctly" or "I have spelt it correctly"?
The short answer is: they are both correct.
--
| _
| ( ) ASCII Ribbon Campaign
| X Against HTML email & news
| / \ www.asciiribbon.org
Mark Wallace
> correctly" or "I have spelt it correctly"?
Both, although some subscribe to "spelt" being used only as a simple past
form, whilst others claim it should only be used to form the present/past
perfect.
Wait until some petty style manual takes sides -- then the Yanks amongst us
will start screaming that that is the only possible way to use it, and
always has been.
Farhad
spelling. But Americans treat the regular and irregular forms
differently. As a verb, they almost always use them in regular form.
Look at the examples below:
You've spelled my name wrong.
I learned to drive when I was 17.
But, when they use them as modifiers (adjectives), they tend to use
the irregular form:
Students, you should underline the wrongly-spelt words.
I don't like burnt food.
Regards,
Farhad
mcfadden.matthew
less used in America. But both are correct.
Barbara Bailey
wrote:
>
>"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
>news:l9f273toj1529o89e...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Can someone please tell me the correct usage "I have spelled it
>> correctly" or "I have spelt it correctly"?
>
>I think that both are correct, but in the US a speaker using "spelt" is
>likely to see a few eyebrows raised, since here the irregular pp tends
>to be less familiar.
Unless he's talking about fish...
>
>Learnt is in the same boat. "Lit" is probably on its way out, too.
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Barbara Bailey
wrote:
>
>"Alasdair" <ma...@bobaxter.coo.uk> wrote in message
>news:l9f273toj1529o89e...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Can someone please tell me the correct usage "I have spelled it
>> correctly" or "I have spelt it correctly"?
>
>I think that both are correct, but in the US a speaker using "spelt" is
>likely to see a few eyebrows raised, since here the irregular pp tends
>to be less familiar.
Arrgh. Grain, not fish. That's "smelt"
>
>Learnt is in the same boat. "Lit" is probably on its way out, too.
>
Mark Wallace
"Farhad" <fvaf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1181841444.6...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> In the UK, "spelt", "learnt", "burnt", etc are the common way of
> spelling. But Americans treat the regular and irregular forms
> differently.
I'm afraid that's not true. US English is every bit as likely to bow to the
influence of Germanic usage.
geo...@ankerstein.org
> Can someone please tell me the correct usage "I have spelled it
> correctly" or "I have spelt it correctly"?
Spellt or spelt is incorrect. They go back to a spelling reform
during the Teddy Roosevelt era. It failed.
Forget British objections. They lost WWII. The USA and USSR
won.
GFH
Cece
In the U.S., those irregular forms learned from Brits are taking
over. I hear them, and see them in new fiction, and it drives me
nuts! Whyever would someone change a perfectly good regular verb into
an irregular one?
Cece
Cece
Answered from the U.S., and about 10 years ago:
"Burnt" is a modifier, as is "burned." "Burned" is the past tense
verb; "burnt" is not.
"Learnt" and "spelt" do not exist. Neither does "leant." "Learned,"
"spelled," "leaned." One or two others, too, are regular verbs, not
the irregulars used by Brits and snobbish or ignorant Americans.
Cece
Flying Tortoise
Do I take it that wise Americans use 'feeled', 'spended', and 'meaned'
on the same basis then? As I vaguely recall saying before there is
good reason to maintain 'learnt' in addition to 'learned' in Britland
where the latter is an adjective equivalent to 'well educated'.
Likewise 'spelt' is tha past of spell as in enunciating the letters in
a word, whilst 'spelled' is the past of spell as in casting a spell or
as in temporarily replacing someone. Meanwhile I can think of little
more ignorant and snobbish than the claim, ""Learnt" and "spelt" do
not exist." Does 'cilantro' "not exist" because I say 'coriander' here
in England then?
Mark Wallace
"Flying Tortoise" <purpl...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:1181935747.3...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 15, 6:17 pm, Cece <ceceliaarmstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 14 jun, 12:17, Farhad <fvafa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In the UK, "spelt", "learnt", "burnt", etc are the common way of
>> > spelling. But Americans treat the regular and irregular forms
>> > differently. As a verb, they almost always use them in regular form.
>> > Look at the examples below:
>>
>> > You've spelled my name wrong.
>> > I learned to drive when I was 17.
>>
>> > But, when they use them as modifiers (adjectives), they tend to use
>> > the irregular form:
>>
>> > Students, you should underline the wrongly-spelt words.
>> > I don't like burnt food.
>>
>> > Regards,
>> > Farhad
>>
>> Answered from the U.S., and about 10 years ago:
>>
>> "Burnt" is a modifier, as is "burned." "Burned" is the past tense
>> verb; "burnt" is not.
>>
>> "Learnt" and "spelt" do not exist. Neither does "leant." "Learned,"
>> "spelled," "leaned." One or two others, too, are regular verbs, not
>> the irregulars used by Brits and snobbish or ignorant Americans.
>>
>
> Do I take it that wise Americans use 'feeled', 'spended', and 'meaned'
> on the same basis then? As I vaguely recall saying before there is
> good reason to maintain 'learnt' in addition to 'learned' in Britland
> where the latter is an adjective equivalent to 'well educated'.
Different thing; it's even pronounced differently. The "t" verb ending is a
Dutch influence.
> Likewise 'spelt' is tha past of spell as in enunciating the letters in
> a word, whilst 'spelled' is the past of spell as in casting a spell or
> as in temporarily replacing someone.
That looks like the kind of crap that people come up with for style manuals,
in an effort to a: make names for themselves, and b: find silly (but wrong)
explanations for perfectly normal usages. The simple reality is that
English is a composite of many languages, so variants like this occur.
> Meanwhile I can think of little
> more ignorant and snobbish than the claim, ""Learnt" and "spelt" do
> not exist." Does 'cilantro' "not exist" because I say 'coriander' here
> in England then?
Golly. Linguistic existentialism.
It doesn't exist as part of the English language, unless it's either used by
many native speakers or in reputable dictionaries.
geo...@ankerstein.org
> On Jun 15, 6:17 pm, Cece <ceceliaarmstr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 14 jun, 12:17, Farhad <fvafa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the UK, "spelt", "learnt", "burnt", etc are the common way of
> > > spelling. But Americans treat the regular and irregular forms
> > > differently. As a verb, they almost always use them in regular form.
> > > Look at the examples below:
>
> > > You've spelled my name wrong.
> > > I learned to drive when I was 17.
>
> > > But, when they use them as modifiers (adjectives), they tend to use
> > > the irregular form:
>
> > > Students, you should underline the wrongly-spelt words.
> > > I don't like burnt food.
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Farhad
>
> > Answered from the U.S., and about 10 years ago:
>
> > "Burnt" is a modifier, as is "burned." "Burned" is the past tense
> > verb; "burnt" is not.
>
> > "Learnt" and "spelt" do not exist. Neither does "leant." "Learned,"
> > "spelled," "leaned." One or two others, too, are regular verbs, not
> > the irregulars used by Brits and snobbish or ignorant Americans.
>
> Do I take it that wise Americans use 'feeled',
A cheap shot -- especially because it is inaccurate.
Try again.
BTW, the Brtis did not invent irregular verbs. They got the from the
Germans,
just as we did.
GFH
Flying Tortoise
I'm sorry. Did we skip Irony 101?
>
> Try again.
>
> BTW, the Brtis did not invent irregular verbs. They got the from the
> Germans,
> just as we did.
.... who got it from the Romans who got it from the Greeks. Is there
a point?
geo...@ankerstein.org
Yes, there is a difference between a spelling reform and an irregular
noun or verb.
GFH
Flying Tortoise
There's a difference between an octopus and a skyscraper too which
would be an equally baffling comparison and non-point. However,
assuming you mean what I think you mean, you're argument really goes
nowhere because this isn't a simple spelling reform. It also requires
a change of pronunciation (a quite major one in the case of leant/
leaned). It can only be the regularising of an irregular verb not a
spelling tidy-up.
I don't have a problem with that. If you want to say spelled where I
say spelt that's of no more consequence to me than the fact that
Americans rhyme tomato with potato and I rhyme it with vibrato. What
offended me was firstly that someone should use it as a stick to beat
other people with at all and secondly that someone should characterise
people as ignorant and snobbish for making an irregular verb of a
regular one when the movement was in fact quite the opposite way and
the alleged 'snobs' were merely retaining older practice.
Peter Duncanson
Anyway, the so-called "irregular" verbs are just "differently
regular".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Mark Wallace
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:je18735aspvnmdp4d...@4ax.com...
Ooh, no! They're "Strong!"
geo...@ankerstein.org
> Anyway, the so-called "irregular" verbs are just "differently
> regular".
If you want to define a group as "one or more", then you ware correct.
go, went, gone. is there another verb in that "group"?
"Strong" and "weak" applies to German and Dutch verbs, not English
verbs.
GFH
Robert Lieblich
If you Google <"strong verbs" english>, you'll find a lot of
reputable-looking authorities that disagree with you.
I don't much care one way or the other. It's just another
definition-of-terms game.
Flying Tortoise
> On Jun 16, 11:48 am, Peter Duncanson <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> > Anyway, the so-called "irregular" verbs are just "differently
> > regular".
>
> If you want to define a group as "one or more", then you ware correct.
> go, went, gone. is there another verb in that "group"?
"Went" is not actually the past of 'go' at all but the past of 'wend'.
So if 'go' has a group at all, it's a group of 'one verb, two sources'
in which case .... I'll have to get back to you on whether there's
another.
Mark Wallace
<geo...@ankerstein.org> wrote in message
news:1182092754.5...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
They've always been used to describe irregular and regular verbs,
respectively (well, as part of morphology, actually, to define less common
and more common inflections, again respectively), and I imagine they are
defined in dictionaries as doing so, so why should you think they are not
part of English?
Adam Funk
> Likewise 'spelt' is tha past of spell as in enunciating the letters
> in a word, whilst 'spelled' is the past of spell as in casting a
> spell or as in temporarily replacing someone. Meanwhile I can think
> of little more ignorant and snobbish than the claim, ""Learnt" and
> "spelt" do not exist." Does 'cilantro' "not exist" because I say
> 'coriander' here in England then?
Far out! Here in England I can buy bags with "spelt" printed right on
them!
--
"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though
she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I
worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say
'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from
the Internet?'" --Mike Godwin, EFF http://www.eff.org/
Mark Wallace
"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:457ik4-...@news.ducksburg.com...
> On 2007-06-15, Flying Tortoise wrote:
>
>> Likewise 'spelt' is tha past of spell as in enunciating the letters
>> in a word, whilst 'spelled' is the past of spell as in casting a
>> spell or as in temporarily replacing someone. Meanwhile I can think
>> of little more ignorant and snobbish than the claim, ""Learnt" and
>> "spelt" do not exist." Does 'cilantro' "not exist" because I say
>> 'coriander' here in England then?
>
> them!
IFYPFY
Grimly Fiendish Rules!
Adam Funk
> IFYPFY
>
> Grimly Fiendish Rules!
Welcome to alt.religion.kibology!
We can use another Mark.