"i've learnt/learned"

[Lothar Frings]

Dear people,

in this comic strip (sorry, no larger version available)

<http://assets.amuniversal.com/7c159bd0a97d012f2fe800163e41dd5b>

it says "i've learnt" in the 2nd panel.

I would have put "i've learned" which has
30 mio Google hits but "i've learnt" nearly
has one mio.

Which one is correct?

[Richard Tobin]

In article <27405717-5229-49bc...@googlegroups.com>,

Lothar Frings <Lothar...@gmx.de> wrote:

>I would have put "i've learned" which has
>30 mio Google hits but "i've learnt" nearly
>has one mio.
>
>Which one is correct?

Both are correct. "Learned" is more common.

"Mio" is not English. Is it German?

-- Richard

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Lothar Frings skrev:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/learn

learn verb uk /lɜːn/ us /lɝːn/ (learned or UK also
learnt, learned or UK also learnt)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/learn?s=t

verb (used with object), learned
[lurnd] or learnt, learning.

British Dictionary definitions for learn
learn
/lɜːn/
verb learns, learning, learned (lɜːnd), learnt

It seems that both are correct.

PS. "learned" in the meaning of "wise/educated" can only be
spelled like that, and it has two syllables in the pronunciation.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Lothar Frings]

Sorry... "mio" is a common German abbreviation for "million".

[the Omrud]

There ore other verbs like this where US English only allows -ed but UK
English also has -t.

From memory, spelt and learnt fall into this category. Perhaps dwelt.
US English allows these, I think: felt, leant, spoilt. There are others
which are uncommon and/or archaic.

--
David

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Both.

"learnt" is used chiefly in British English.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[RH Draney]

On 9/23/2015 3:31 AM, the Omrud wrote:
> On 23/09/2015 10:39, Lothar Frings wrote:
>> Dear people,
>>
>> in this comic strip (sorry, no larger version available)
>>
>> <http://assets.amuniversal.com/7c159bd0a97d012f2fe800163e41dd5b>
>>
>> it says "i've learnt" in the 2nd panel.
>>
>> I would have put "i've learned" which has
>> 30 mio Google hits but "i've learnt" nearly
>> has one mio.

As has been pointed out by now, the strip is apparently British...for
the UK "I've learnt" AmE would probably say "I learned" in such a
context; no modal verb....

> There ore other verbs like this where US English only allows -ed but UK
> English also has -t.
>
> From memory, spelt and learnt fall into this category. Perhaps dwelt.
> US English allows these, I think: felt, leant, spoilt. There are others
> which are uncommon and/or archaic.

Are you saying that you've seen "feeled" from some American somewhere?...

Not uncommon nor archaic: slept, crept...perhaps archaic or at least
dialectical in scope: skint....r

[the Omrud]

On 23/09/2015 11:40, RH Draney wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 3:31 AM, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 23/09/2015 10:39, Lothar Frings wrote:
>>> Dear people,
>>>
>>> in this comic strip (sorry, no larger version available)
>>>
>>> <http://assets.amuniversal.com/7c159bd0a97d012f2fe800163e41dd5b>
>>>
>>> it says "i've learnt" in the 2nd panel.
>>>
>>> I would have put "i've learned" which has
>>> 30 mio Google hits but "i've learnt" nearly
>>> has one mio.
>
> As has been pointed out by now, the strip is apparently British...for
> the UK "I've learnt" AmE would probably say "I learned" in such a
> context; no modal verb....
>
>> There ore other verbs like this where US English only allows -ed but UK
>> English also has -t.
>>
>> From memory, spelt and learnt fall into this category. Perhaps dwelt.
>> US English allows these, I think: felt, leant, spoilt. There are others
>> which are uncommon and/or archaic.
>
> Are you saying that you've seen "feeled" from some American somewhere?...

Er, no, exactly the opposite. US English allows "felt" despite it being
of the same format as learnt.

> Not uncommon nor archaic: slept, crept...perhaps archaic or at least
> dialectical in scope: skint....r

Right, but they're not different in BrE.

--
David

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Lothar Frings skrev:

>> "Mio" is not English. Is it German?

> Sorry... "mio" is a common German abbreviation for "million".

Doesn't it take a point? It does in Danish.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Lothar Frings]

Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> Lothar Frings skrev:
>
> >> "Mio" is not English. Is it German?
>
> > Sorry... "mio" is a common German abbreviation for "million".
>
> Doesn't it take a point?

It does.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 6:41:42 AM UTC-4, RH Draney wrote:

> Not uncommon nor archaic: slept, crept...perhaps archaic or at least
> dialectical in scope: skint....r

? As in "skinned your knee"?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 03:40:53 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:

>Not uncommon nor archaic: slept, crept...perhaps archaic or at least
>dialectical in scope: skint....r

"skint" is common in BrE meaning "(Of a person) having little or no
money available":
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/skint

It was originally a form of "skinned" with the same meaning, but now
seems to have an independent life detached from its origin.

[Joey Wolf Dee]

dreamed/dreamt

[Jerry Friedman]

Chiefly, yes, but as Lewis said, "learnt" is sometimes used in America too.

Someone may be along soon to say he uses both "I learned" and "I
learnt", with different meanings.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Steve Hayes]

I do, sometimes.

Likewise burned and burnt.

The latter implies a completed proces:

The fire burned fiercely.
The building was burnt to the ground.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:37:15 PM UTC-4, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 08:54:04 -0600, Jerry Friedman
> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >Someone may be along soon to say he uses both "I learned" and "I
> >learnt", with different meanings.
>
> I do, sometimes.
>
> Likewise burned and burnt.
>
> The latter implies a completed proces:
>
> The fire burned fiercely.
> The building was burnt to the ground.

When you put it that way, they're not the same word any more -- "burnt" is
an adjective describing a state, but "The building was burned to the ground"
is a simple passive -- a counterinsurgency team might use that of what they
did to the terrorists' HQ.

[Tom P]

and it's an adjective in that case, not the past participle of "learn".

[Joe Fineman]

Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> writes:

> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/learn
>
> learn verb uk /lɜːn/ us /lɝːn/ (learned or UK also
> learnt, learned or UK also learnt)
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/learn?s=t
>
> verb (used with object), learned
> [lurnd] or learnt, learning.
>
> British Dictionary definitions for learn
> learn
> /lɜːn/
> verb learns, learning, learned (lɜːnd), learnt

"Learnt" does have a UK air about it for me, and I don't use it myself.
However, Pete Seeger, who is as American as you can get, says "learnt".
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net

||: Saw a crawdad big as a whale: :||
||: Jesus bugs fucking -- I was on their scale. :||

[Robert Bannister]

Either, but I would usually go for "I've learnt" because that is what I
usually say. Americans would probably choose "learned" and there are
millions of them.

--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[Robert Bannister]

On 23/09/2015 6:04 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> PS. "learned" in the meaning of "wise/educated" can only be
> spelled like that, and it has two syllables in the pronunciation.
>

Really? I would spell it "learnèd" because for me it is a two-syllable word.

[Robert Bannister]

Not in Br&OtherE where "the building was burnt to the ground" is quite
normal.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Robert Bannister skrev:

>> PS. "learned" in the meaning of "wise/educated" can only be
>> spelled like that, and it has two syllables in the pronunciation.

> Really?

I meant in contrast to "learnt".

> I would spell it "learnèd" because for me it is a two-syllable word.

A strange choice of accent in my view, but then I have learnt
some French.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Cheryl]

It's fairly standard in English, although I think mostly in religious
writings in old-fashioned English- which probably means that most young
English speakers wouldn't recognize it.

--
Cheryl

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

The grave accent is more suitable for this purpose than an acute accent.
The purpose of the accent, in this context, is to show that a normally
silent vowel is to be sounded. If the acute accent were to be used it
could be interpreted as meaning the "e" is to be pronounced as an
e-acute which would sound like "ay" in "say", "tray" and "hay".

This says that the acute accent is sometimes used to mark a sounded
vowel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_accent#English

The acute accent is sometimes (though rarely) used for poetic
purposes:
* ...
* ...
* It can indicate the sounding of an ordinarily silent letter: for
example, pickéd to indicate the pronunciation ['p?k?d], rather
than standard [p?kt] (the grave accent is more common for this
last purpose).

[Charles Bishop]

In article <mu0bru$7p4$1...@dont-email.me>,

Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> Robert Bannister skrev:
>
> >> PS. "learned" in the meaning of "wise/educated" can only be
> >> spelled like that, and it has two syllables in the pronunciation.
>
> > Really?
>
> I meant in contrast to "learnt".
>

> > I would spell it "learnčd" because for me it is a two-syllable word.

>
> A strange choice of accent in my view, but then I have learnt
> some French.

It may be that the accent is there to show pronunciation, but an odd
one. It shows up in the phrase "my learnED friend".

--
charles

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 02:39:07 -0700, Lothar Frings wrote:

[...]

> I would have put "i've learned" which has 30 mio Google hits but "i've
> learnt" nearly has one mio.
>
> Which one is correct?

As many have already noted, both are. As a sidebar, some few such
unusual past forms have become the adjectival form, but there is no rule
that I know of. Verbs of this -ed/-t duality include:

accursed / accurst [both now adjectives only]
bereaved / bereft
blended / blent
blessed / blest
builded / built [-ed form obsolete]
cleaved / cleft
dared / durst [-t form archaic?]
dipped / dipt
dreamed / dreamt
dressed / drest
dropped / dropt
dwelled / dwelt
gilded / gilt
girded / girt
kneeled / knelt
leaned / leant
leaped / leapt
learned / learnt
lighted / lit
penned / pent [-t form now adjective only]
reaved / reft
roasted / roast [-t form now adjective only]
smelled / smelt
spelled / spelt
spilled / spilt
spoiled / spoilt
wonted / wont [both now adjectives only, from obsolete verb "won"]

Though not so marked in my source (Curme's _English Grammar_), I would
reckon that blent, dipt, drest, and dropt are also now archaic or
obsolete.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Because your source is an archaic or obsolete book

[Robert Bannister]

Well, it's neither the sound of "e aigu" nor of "e grave", but it is or
used to be a standard way of indicating a pronounced syllable that is
normally silent in English — the difference between "an agèd person" and
"aged wine", although here in Oz, it seems people are "aged" just like
booze.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Robert Bannister skrev:

> Well, it's neither the sound of "e aigu" nor of "e grave", but it is or
> used to be a standard way of indicating a pronounced syllable that is
> normally silent in English — the difference between "an agèd person" and
> "aged wine", although here in Oz, it seems people are "aged" just like
> booze.

Okay. It's just that I have never seen that accent before in
English, and it's the opposite of what we would use in Danish
though the change in pronunciation would be a little different.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[GordonD]

I have a book about the Apollo 13 mission and throughout the author
spells "re-entry" without the hyphen, but with an umlaut over the
second "e".
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

[Will Parsons]

On Saturday, 26 Sep 2015 5:34 PM -0400, GordonD wrote:
> On 25/09/2015 04:50, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 24/09/2015 4:25 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> Robert Bannister skrev:
>>>
>>>>> PS. "learned" in the meaning of "wise/educated" can only be
>>>>> spelled like that, and it has two syllables in the pronunciation.
>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>
>>> I meant in contrast to "learnt".
>>>
>>>> I would spell it "learnèd" because for me it is a two-syllable word.
>>>
>>> A strange choice of accent in my view, but then I have learnt
>>> some French.
>>>
>> Well, it's neither the sound of "e aigu" nor of "e grave", but it is or
>> used to be a standard way of indicating a pronounced syllable that is
>> normally silent in English — the difference between "an agèd person" and
>> "aged wine", although here in Oz, it seems people are "aged" just like
>> booze.

I think it's still standard, but fairly uncommon - only used when it's
important to indicate the E is pronounced.

Sometimes e-acute is used in foreign words (thus, not in cases like
"learnèd") to indicate a pronounced E, but this can be confusing,
since é is used in French and Spanish with quite different usage. An
example that comes to mind in the South American beverage "(yerba)
mate", often spelled "maté in English to indicate the final E is
pronounced, at the cost of giving an different, erroneous impression
of the pronunciation.

> I have a book about the Apollo 13 mission and throughout the author
> spells "re-entry" without the hyphen, but with an umlaut over the
> second "e".

Technically, that's a diaeresis rather than an umlaut, but admittedly,
it's the same symbol.

--
Will

[Robert Bannister]

Strictly speaking, a diaeresis, not an umlaut.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 5:34:51 PM UTC-4, GordonD wrote:

> I have a book about the Apollo 13 mission and throughout the author
> spells "re-entry" without the hyphen, but with an umlaut over the
> second "e".

Is it a British edition? Or perhaps the material originally appeared in The
New Yorker?

[GordonD]

After my original post I checked Wikipedia and found that (a) the mark
is actually called a diaeresis (as Robert and Will pointed out -
thanks!) and (b) that this spelling is used by The New Yorker. So I dug
out the book and found that the author, Henry S.F. Cooper, was indeed a
long-term staff writer there. The book was written at the suggestion of
the editor.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Conceivably that means it wasn't published in The New Yorker, but that's
highly unlikely! New Yorker books don't generally give original magazine
publication dates, because the serialized versions may be highly edited
with the books returning to the author's intent. In Brodsky's volumes of
poetry, it tends to say "[Title] was published in somewhat different form
in The New Yorker."

This went out the window with Tina Brown: at one point they published a
piece by John McPhee as a stand-alone article, which obviously had been
mauled from his original (usually he was spread over four to six numbers).
He did not appear there again. (And Andrew Porter resigned the moment she was announced as editor.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Universal in hymn books WIWAL when they wanted to insist that -ed was a
syllable.

Nothing to do with French.
--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes, you're right, but the "yerba" makes it pretty that we're not
dealing with an English phrase.

>
>> I have a book about the Apollo 13 mission and throughout the author
>> spells "re-entry" without the hyphen, but with an umlaut over the
>> second "e".
>
> Technically, that's a diaeresis rather than an umlaut, but admittedly,
> it's the same symbol.


--

athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

The last time this came up we learned that Adam Funk used diareses in
such words, but he's not a long-term staff writer at the New Yorker.
However, like PThD I associate the usage with the New Yorker.


--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-09-23 10:31:27 +0000, the Omrud said:

> On 23/09/2015 10:39, Lothar Frings wrote:
>> Dear people,
>>
>> in this comic strip (sorry, no larger version available)
>>
>> <http://assets.amuniversal.com/7c159bd0a97d012f2fe800163e41dd5b>
>>
>> it says "i've learnt" in the 2nd panel.
>>

>> I would have put "i've learned" which has
>> 30 mio Google hits but "i've learnt" nearly
>> has one mio.
>

> There ore other verbs like this where US English only allows -ed but UK
> English also has -t.
>
> From memory, spelt and learnt fall into this category. Perhaps dwelt.
> US English allows these, I think: felt, leant, spoilt. There are
> others which are uncommon and/or archaic.

I use both. In the case of "learnt"I normally write -ed for the past
participle and -t for the simple past. For the others I mostly use -t
(in the case of "felt" anything else would strike me as weird).
--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

Adam Funk said that he does so for fun and when he can get away with it, and
on occasion does so in words where there is no call for any special marking.

Will Athel ever know that when he made a civil, albeit third-person, remark,
he was met with civility?

[Will Parsons]

Presumably the old-style hymn books that just printed the words - no
music? If they print the music there should be no need, e.g.,

Hail, Thou once de-spis-ed Je-sus!

> Nothing to do with French.

Right. And welcome back!

--
Will

[Will Parsons]

I used to use them (and I don't write for the New Yorker), but I've
shifted pretty much to using hyphens instead.

--
Will

[Robert Bannister]

On 27/09/2015 9:38 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2015-09-24 10:14:47 +0000, Cheryl said:
>
>> On 2015-09-24 5:55 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

>> It's fairly standard in English, although I think mostly in religious
>> writings in old-fashioned English- which probably means that most
>> young English speakers wouldn't recognize it.

Old-fashioned English had apostrophes to show when the 'e' wasn't
pronounc'd for quite a long time.

>
> Universal in hymn books WIWAL when they wanted to insist that -ed was a
> syllable.
>
> Nothing to do with French.

Agreed. I presume the èd spellings came in when the 'd spellings faded out.

[Will Parsons]

I'm not sure if there's a necessary correlation. The "èd" spellings
clarify that the suffix is a separate syllable, the "'d" spellings
clarify that it is not.

--
Will

[Steve Hayes]

And then the "blest" version came in.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Janet]

In article <i23h0b5o5spdmos95...@4ax.com>,
haye...@telkomsa.net says...

>
> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:45:11 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> >On 27/09/2015 9:38 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2015-09-24 10:14:47 +0000, Cheryl said:
> >>
> >>> On 2015-09-24 5:55 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> >
> >>> It's fairly standard in English, although I think mostly in religious
> >>> writings in old-fashioned English- which probably means that most
> >>> young English speakers wouldn't recognize it.
> >
> >Old-fashioned English had apostrophes to show when the 'e' wasn't
> >pronounc'd for quite a long time.
> >>
> >> Universal in hymn books WIWAL when they wanted to insist that -ed was a
> >> syllable.
> >>
> >> Nothing to do with French.
> >
> >Agreed. I presume the èd spellings came in when the 'd spellings faded out.
>
> And then the "blest" version came in.

two syllable bless-ed is still often heard in br.E

Janet.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

And of course there is the loudly-spoken actor Brian Blessed (bless-ed).
IMDb says of him:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000306/

Boisterous British actor Brian Blessed is known for his hearty,
king-sized portrayals on film and television. A giant of a man
accompanied by an eloquent wit and booming, operatic voice,...

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote in
news:MPG.30733cf...@news.individual.net:

He's often heard on this side of the pond as well. A voice like that is
hard to miss.
--
S.O.P.
badgers badgers badgers badgers

[Tony Cooper]

TV and radio preachers often use odd stress patterns for certain
words. You might hear "Gee-zuss" with an emphatic emphasis on the
"gee". Or, you might hear "saved" as three distinct syllables. Or,
"Lor-duh" with emphatic emphasis on the "duh".



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[GordonD]

On 28/09/2015 17:25, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Janet <nob...@home.org> wrote in
> news:MPG.30733cf...@news.individual.net:
>
>> In article <i23h0b5o5spdmos95...@4ax.com>,
>> haye...@telkomsa.net says...
>>>
>>> On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:45:11 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/09/2015 9:38 pm, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-09-24 10:14:47 +0000, Cheryl said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-09-24 5:55 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It's fairly standard in English, although I think mostly in
>>>>>> religious writings in old-fashioned English- which probably means
>>>>>> that most young English speakers wouldn't recognize it.
>>>>
>>>> Old-fashioned English had apostrophes to show when the 'e' wasn't
>>>> pronounc'd for quite a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Universal in hymn books WIWAL when they wanted to insist that -ed
>>>>> was a syllable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing to do with French.
>>>>

>>>> Agreed. I presume the èd spellings came in when the 'd spellings

>>>> faded out.
>>>
>>> And then the "blest" version came in.
>>
>> two syllable bless-ed is still often heard in br.E
>
> He's often heard on this side of the pond as well.

On television, or does his voice just carry?

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 13:36:43 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:

[...]

> TV and radio preachers often use odd stress patterns for certain words.
> You might hear "Gee-zuss" with an emphatic emphasis on the "gee". Or,
> you might hear "saved" as three distinct syllables. Or,
> "Lor-duh" with emphatic emphasis on the "duh".

Some Jewish comedian (I forget who, it was long ago) once remarked that
his grandfather, a rabbi, was the only person he knew who could pronounce
"God" as three syllables.

[Robin Bignall]

On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 23:05:23 +0100, GordonD <g.d...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

An article in yesterday's Sunday Times tells of his decades-long love /
hate relationship with Peter O'Toole. Apparently it was only the sound
of his particular voice that could stop O'T in his tracks when the
latter was in one of his frequent drunken destructive rages.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)

[Robert Bannister]

On 28/09/2015 9:01 pm, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

> And of course there is the loudly-spoken actor Brian Blessed (bless-ed).
> IMDb says of him:
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000306/
>
> Boisterous British actor Brian Blessed is known for his hearty,
> king-sized portrayals on film and television. A giant of a man
> accompanied by an eloquent wit and booming, operatic voice,...
>
>

Didn't he die relatively recently?

[bill van]

In article <d6ub32...@mid.individual.net>,

No, Brian Blessed appears to be whinnying with us still, at 78. Another
distinguished Shakespearean actor, Alan Howard, died earlier this year.
--
bill

[charles]

In article <billvan-7A1445...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,

But, BB had a heart attacck on stage in Guildford earlier in the year while
playing Lear.

--
Please note new email address:
cha...@CandEhope.me.uk

[bill van]

In article <550a9933...@candehope.me.uk>,

Blessed had an episode of heart arrhythmia, irregular heartbeat, and
fainted on stage in January. But he returned to the stage 20 minutes
later, apologized for the delay and finished the performance. A quick
Web search indicates he is taking on new roles. He might not be
perfectly healthy, but he is active.
--
bill

[Robert Bannister]

That might have been what misled me.

[GordonD]

To misquote one of his most famous roles, BRIAN'S ALIIIVE!!!!!!!!!

[Peter Moylan]

On 2015-Sep-30 09:49, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> That might have been what misled me.

Now that's where we need a diacritic. "Mislèd" would make it clear that
you weren't referring to the verb "misle".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Peter Moylan]

On 2015-Sep-23 23:21, Joey Wolf Dee wrote:
> On 2015-09-23 10:40:53 +0000, RH Draney said:

>
>> On 9/23/2015 3:31 AM, the Omrud wrote:
>>> On 23/09/2015 10:39, Lothar Frings wrote:
>>>> Dear people,
>>>>
>>>> in this comic strip (sorry, no larger version available)
>>>>
>>>> <http://assets.amuniversal.com/7c159bd0a97d012f2fe800163e41dd5b>
>>>>
>>>> it says "i've learnt" in the 2nd panel.
>>>>
>>>> I would have put "i've learned" which has
>>>> 30 mio Google hits but "i've learnt" nearly
>>>> has one mio.
>>

>> As has been pointed out by now, the strip is apparently British...for
>> the UK "I've learnt" AmE would probably say "I learned" in such a
>> context; no modal verb....

>>
>>> There ore other verbs like this where US English only allows -ed but UK
>>> English also has -t.
>>>
>>> From memory, spelt and learnt fall into this category. Perhaps dwelt.
>>> US English allows these, I think: felt, leant, spoilt. There are others
>>> which are uncommon and/or archaic.
>>

>> Are you saying that you've seen "feeled" from some American somewhere?...
>>
>> Not uncommon nor archaic: slept, crept...perhaps archaic or at least
>> dialectical in scope: skint....r
>
> dreamed/dreamt

Does AmE have "burned"? If so, that's another common pair.

[Janet]

In article <mvdbtp$lmj$1...@dont-email.me>, pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...

>
> On 2015-Sep-30 09:49, Robert Bannister wrote:
> >
> > That might have been what misled me.
>
> Now that's where we need a diacritic. "Mislèd" would make it clear that
> you weren't referring to the verb "misle".

When I was a child I read misled as "mizzled" for years.

Janet

[Robert Bannister]

On 11/10/2015 6:01 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2015-Sep-30 09:49, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>> That might have been what misled me.
>
> Now that's where we need a diacritic. "Mislèd" would make it clear that
> you weren't referring to the verb "misle".
>

Not to be confused with the Divine Missile.

[Robert Bannister]

But note that "dreamt, leant, slept..." have a vowel change, where
"learnt, burnt,..." do not.

[Jerry Friedman]

Yes, what's more or less standard here is "I burned the toast," "I have
often burned the toast," and "I don't like burnt toast." However, lots
of Americans use the words differently. I'd be likely to say "burned
toast", for instance.

--
Jerry Friedman