Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: irregular verbs in British English

In British English, many verbs that previously allowed only the irregular
past tense and past participle can now be used either way, with the
irregular or the regular forms. Burn, dream, lean, learn, smell, spill are
examples.
I always thought that a person's use of either the irregular or regular form
depends on where he went to school/college, but is this really so?
In recent years I have read many  British-authored novels employing
seemingly randomly sometimes learnt, for example, and at other times
learned, outside of the characters' direct speech. Can I put this down
simply to sloppy writing and even sloppier editing?
More puzzling even, just now I finished reading a book by a British
contemporary author using consistently leant, learnt and smelt, and equally
consistently burned and dreamed. I would have expected him to use the
irregular past tense also for burn and dream, i.e. burnt and dreamt.
Wouldn't you, too?
---
Xakero

examples.
I don't know if there is any special reason for what's happening;
maybe it could be generally ascribed to a more or less subconsciuos 
desire of getting rid of unnecessary complications? After all, life 
is hard enough without having to remember which form of past tense 
to use :)
I remember reading something about the lack of care in spelling and
use of verbs being inducted by stress; according to the article, 
stressed persons tend to be less and less accurate in everything,
including correct speaking and writing.
But let me add a question: for most of the above cases the change 
is limited to the written form while the pronunciation remains just about the same,
so the change is kind of unobtrusive because it does not imply any change in the
spoken word.
However, this is not the case for dreamed/dreamt (and maybe others I don't know),
which sound quite different. I'm wondering if in this case the change in writing 
is correctly reflected in the pronounciation, or not.
+--
I know you can't speak, I know you can't sign
So cry right here on the dotted line

In forming the past participle of verbs such as those you mentioned, the
British tend to use "-t" and Americans tend to use "-ed"; but that
distinction is not absolutely true as several quotations listed in the OED
reveal. Certain verbs seem to have a greater affinity, in modern usage,
for the "-t" rather than "-ed" ending, as spelt and spilt and burnt sound
more idiomatic, to me, than learnt or dreamt; whereas the past part. of
"to lean" rarely becomes "leant" as that form might be confused with
"lent" (the verb and the noun).
Unfortunately no grammatical rule exists, leaving only a vague sense of
which sounds better as a guide; though comprehensive dictionaries, like
the OED, will at least indicate the direction in which modern usage is
tending. Choosing between "spelled" and "spelt", however, differs little
from deciding between "perso" and "perduto", for both forms are correct.
Also consider that -ere verbs in the passato remoto may end with
"-ei/-etti", "-e/-ette", or "-erono/-ettero" depending on the person. Does
it make a difference which one you use?
Given the ambiguity and complexity of the situation, I would not expect a
writer to be entirely consistent in applying "-t" or "-ed", especially in
literary writing.
As for pronuciaton, English speakers do differiate between the harder "-t"
and the softer "-ed" sounds of the final syllable, but besides the ending
sound, in "dreamt", the "ea" is short like the "e" of pet, but in
"dreamed" the vowel is long like the "ea" of "bean." "To lean" follows the
same pattern.
-JJP
Xakero wrote:




-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 In forming the past participle of verbs such as those you mentioned, the
<snip>
I like reading all these grammar explanations, I learn 
something about my own language now and then.  That's one of 
the things that keeps me coming back.
Regarding the discussion of this thread, what exactly does 
the word "participle" mean?  Besides the past, is there a 
current and future participle as well?  Would you give an 
english example of each?
Thanks,
Rick

  Besides the past, is there a current and future participle as well?
Would you give an english example of each?
A participle is also used to form verb forms, such as:
I have gone
I am going
I will be going
I don't think you can talk about future and present here, because a
participle is simply a word which can then be used in grammatical
constructions, in different tenses.
My OED reads:
Origin Late Middle English, from Latin 'participium' (verbal form) = sharing
(the functions of a noun), from 'partecipare' = share in.
Cheers
Cristina

Thank you Cristina, that was very helpful.
Rick

 literary writing.
Thank you!
I see I was wrong to expect a novelist to consistently use, or to
consistently refrain from using, the irregular past tense and past
participle where such are optionally available in British English. My error
probably has to do with the fact that these irregular forms were drummed
into me when I first learnt English and, at that time, anything else was
considered incorrect. Not that I minded very much.  Latin was much more of a
mine field (and 99.9% of it since forgotten)
---
Xakero
(PS. The use of the split infinitve is deliberate)