@mousethief and @Nick Tamen do you actually say and hear 'learned', dreamed', 'spelled', 'burned' etc with a 'd' in the US? Or is it more a belief that as the regular form of the past tense and participle end in '..ed' that's how they should be spelt irrespective of how people actually say them? That would be much as nobody spells half their plurals with a '..z' irrespective whether they pronounce them '..s' or ..z'? You're just expected to know which plurals are pronounced which way, and habit means none of us notice that we're pronouncing them the right way.
@mousethief and @Nick Tamen do you actually say and hear 'learned', dreamed', 'spelled', 'burned' etc with a 'd' in the US?
Yes, we say and hear “learned,” “dreamed” and “spelled”—all with -d rather than -t sounds. We also say “burned” for the past tense of the verb “burn,” while “burnt” is often used for the adjective.
Incidentally, is 'kept' spelt 'keeped' in the US?
Ah, “kept” is spelled (see what I did there?) and pronounced “kept” in the US. That is another example of the (relatively few) instances, like “knelt,” where -t is used instead of -ed in the States.
I was thinking the same thing, that if I used or heard "burned" I would expect that to be the verb form, whereas for an adjective I would unquestionably go with "burnt".
Some of the other examples I'm not sure where I'd land. I think I'd tend towards "spelled" more than "spelt". And probably "dreamed" as well. In that case there's the whole vowel shift question too..
What's the difference between words ending with 't' and 'ed'?
Originally Answered: What's the difference between words ending with 't' and 'ed'? (eg. smelled and smelt, leaped and leapt)
The difference is simply one of spelling. The spelling with "t" is the older (original) spelling and is still used in British English. With the passage of time, however, the "t" changed to "-ed" to make the spelling similar to other regular verbs (such as "walked," "smiled," etc.) and the "-ed" form is now the standard spelling in American English (though both spellings are recognized and accepted).
This change in spelling follows a pattern. There is a tendency in English to turn irregular verbs into regular verbs. For example, the original past tense and past participle of "fit" is "fit" (no change in the form). However, more and more people these days are using "fitted" as the past tense and past participle. Another example is the irregular verb "beseech." The original past tense and past participle is "besought." Over time, however, this irregular form has dropped out and many people now use "beseeched" instead.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
Some of the other examples I'm not sure where I'd land. I think I'd tend towards "spelled" more than "spelt". And probably "dreamed" as well. In that case there's the whole vowel shift question too..
If I'd given a horse or machinery a bit of a rest, I say that I'd spelled it, and pronounce it like that rather that spelt.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I think the only place I'd expect to find "smelt" is the fish or the metallurgic process. I think it's use as the part participle of "smell" is very archaic.
But thinking again, maybe I just hear "smell" more in an American context, and that's trained my expectations.
I remember the little rhyme we had in school when somebody complained of a fart: "Whoever smelt it, dealt it." So we at least knew of that participle back in 1970s USA.
I think the only place I'd expect to find "smelt" is the fish or the metallurgic process. I think it's use as the part participle of "smell" is very archaic.
But thinking again, maybe I just hear "smell" more in an American context, and that's trained my expectations.
Definitely not, here, as in the children's aphorism,
"he who smelt it, dealt it".
It's occurred to me that one indicator of which version of the past tense and which pronunciation you regard as normal for some of these may be whether in the dialect you speak, vowel in the verb is a long one or a short one. That's not universal. I'd query if the vowel in 'smelt' and 'dealt' is anything other than short anywhere. 'Learnt' and 'burnt' both have the same vowel sound to me, which I'd class as long. But to me, the vowels in 'dreamt', 'knelt' and in both 'lent' and 'leant' are short.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
It's rather that the use of "got" as past participle, pushing out gotten, arose in Britain and spread neither to Norn Irn nor to the US.
Gotten got to Norn Irn and the US when English got there.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
It's rather that the use of "got" as past participle, pushing out gotten, arose in Britain and spread neither to Norn Irn nor to the US.
Gotten got to Norn Irn and the US when English got there.
This seems more likely than a reverse trip across the Atlantic.
I would take explanations that British English is older from such sources with a cautionary grain of salt, though it might be correct in this instance.
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
It's rather that the use of "got" as past participle, pushing out gotten, arose in Britain and spread neither to Norn Irn nor to the US.
Gotten got to Norn Irn and the US when English got there.
This seems more likely than a reverse trip across the Atlantic.
Yes. Lots of things that are regarded as 'standard' British English are simply things that happened in the London area, and then spread. It's just a question of how far they spread.
Soon all of Britain, or at least England, will be speaking Estuary.
Not round 'ere it won't. Derbyshire accent int goin' nowhere. We 'ave nowt to do wi' that London.
It's killing rural accents in the South East though. Of a time, you'd hear three accents in Oxfordshire (by way of example) - a rural accent not totally unlike that heard farther West - a rhotic, "this be moi laaand!"; a clipped RP from the colleges and middle to upper class; and a London influenced Estuarine in the towns. Guess which one's dying fastest and which one's growing...
I haven't heard Sussex in years - last time in a tea garden at Alfriston. Rural Kentish only once, decades back, while pushing my bike up a Roman road near Dover - soon to be lost to a lorry park, to the disgust of the local inhabitants.
But one of the most interesting accents I've heard was from staff at the Bodleian in Oxford. It wasn't just that it was RP, it was a very - yes, probably clipped is the word, but I've only heard it there, not from middle class outside (and that includes college people, but not college people since school).
Where I live there are two - Estuary in the town, which has the excuse of being on the estuary, and the village back of the town, which I didn't realise was different until we had a student in school for teaching practice, heard her in the staffroom and thought she was my cousin. She lived in the same village. My cousins have kept that accent all their lives, despite having very senior jobs in a prestigious company in London, one being a multilingual secretary where secretary meant that and not typist.
They used to talk about conservative RP, I think Brian Sewell had this. Of course, notoriously, the Queen used to, but moderated it. One of my old teachers used to pronounce "parliament" with 4 syllables, i.e., pronouncing the i, which we thought was hilarious, also "miniature". I do enjoy a genuine speaker of conservative RP, Sewell was splendid. Rare today.
In relation to estuary, local builders in west London have a very strong accent, sounding like a caricature, but a Fulham accent was something to behold, so maybe it's that, or a hybrid.
Another clue to conservative RP, and much ridiculed, is "off", pronounced awf. I would say quite rare now, but I have one friend who says it. There are recordings on the interwobble.
Nothing wrong with it in and of itself. It's its pushing out of other accents and dialects that's more of a problem.
Yes, that's why. My mother's family came from Northamptonshire and my great-uncle had a lovely, very distinctive Northants accent that I haven't heard now for years.
Apparently that Northants accent is what I produce when I've had a few to drink - I grew up and attended the local village primary and nearest comprehensive school there until I was 15. I picked up the accent to lose the bullying for being different. But it's only one of a few that I unconsciously chameleon between as protective colouring, which can make it look as if I'm extracting the Michael when I can and do switch between accents in the same conversation to different people.
Out walking recently I heard an Essex accent for the first time for ages - old boy, looked like a retired farm worker. That too is not the same as the more ubiquitous Estuary.
There used to be a difference between north and south London accents - really could hear them, but that's blurred too.
London accents are difficult to decipher. S. London is probably different from estuary, and I am aware of various West London accents, which I tend to call Fulham, and some of these are monsters. I sometimes hang around building sites to catch a flavour, but then a lot of Polish also. Where this leaves Cockney, dunno. Peter Trudgill, the esteemed sociolinguist, has said that estuary tends to be lower middle class, whereas Cockney is working class. An interesting Ph.D., I think.
We used to use "milk" as a test, /miok/ in Cockney, and estuary maybe. The loss of dialects, so sad. My Yorks grandad still said "thou", ("wheer's tha bin"?). Damn, damn and damnation.
I used to use voices in reading stories at school, and I can feel the shape of accents in my mouth. I thought I was doing S London OK until I realised that what I was doing was male S London, not female, a distinction I had not even thought necessary. (I've read about Japanese gender differences, but not heard anyone mention anything similar here.)
When I was in shops in Cirencester where there is a quagmire of pronunciations I had to be very careful not to sound as if taking the michael. There are very posh speakers who say things like "We'll have to come here when we are doing your wardrobe," in a dress shop, not a DIY place, and there were locals with good Gloucestershire accents, calling the place something like Zoiren. Posh is Cisseter, even Cister, proclaimed loudly to be correct. I prefered Zoiren, but stuck with Cirencester, so everyone could think I was ignorant.
Another accent that I think may be dying out is Hampshire.
John Arlott (of blessed memory) was a proud "Basingstoke Boy" but I doubt that many people in Basingstoke speak like him these days. I knew of a few people in Southampton who had similar accents but they were getting rarer and rarer even 20 years ago (ie when I last lived there).
I grew up in north Hampshire, during that period when there were plenty of GLC overspill estates being created in the area. As a result, that area went distinctly "sub-Cockney" for a while - especially in the schools.
Everyone who speaks English speaks it differently! It's a wonder we ever understand each other at all...
The one which caught me out when I'd lived for several years in Texas, and thought I'd found all the different words, was pot holder. My Texas friend looked blank when I asked her to pass the oven gloves. I can imagine there's a few other names for these, too.
Where this leaves Cockney, dunno. Peter Trudgill, the esteemed sociolinguist, has said that estuary tends to be lower middle class, whereas Cockney is working class. An interesting Ph.D., I think.
We used to use "milk" as a test, /miok/ in Cockney, and estuary maybe. The loss of dialects, so sad. My Yorks grandad still said "thou", ("wheer's tha bin"?). Damn, damn and damnation.
I think use of Estuary in London is also an age related thing - maybe under 50? Over 50 it would be cockney. But that is London only. It is spreading country wide, quicker in towns and cities.
... Posh is Cisseter, even Cister, proclaimed loudly to be correct. I prefered Zoiren, but stuck with Cirencester, so everyone could think I was ignorant.
I'm under the impression that Cisseter is as obsolete as Utcheter for Utoxeter, and Cister is and always has been quite simply wrong, only used by those who wanted to show off but didn't actually know how it was supposed to be pronounced. Zoiren/Syren are widespread but colloquial.
The Dorset dialect I grew up with used "gotten", not often, because the preferred verb was "to be" in the various forms, applied in non-standard ways. And I also encountered fall, sidewalk and a few other supposedly American uses of words and other Old English dialect words (I suspect, due to similarity to German). Which makes historical sense, as there were Pilgrim Fathers of West Country origin who travelled from Plymouth.
I used to use voices in reading stories at school, and I can feel the shape of accents in my mouth. I thought I was doing S London OK until I realised that what I was doing was male S London, not female, a distinction I had not even thought necessary. (I've read about Japanese gender differences, but not heard anyone mention anything similar here.)
When I was in shops in Cirencester where there is a quagmire of pronunciations I had to be very careful not to sound as if taking the michael. There are very posh speakers who say things like "We'll have to come here when we are doing your wardrobe," in a dress shop, not a DIY place, and there were locals with good Gloucestershire accents, calling the place something like Zoiren. Posh is Cisseter, even Cister, proclaimed loudly to be correct. I prefered Zoiren, but stuck with Cirencester, so everyone could think I was ignorant.
Your point about gender is interesting, and I remember research on Yorkshire dialects, which seemed to show that men had "stronger" dialects than women. I don't know if there is much research on this. On Cissister, my wife's family are from there, and said that. Zoiren is lovely. I lived in Bristol and most people said Bristow, even la di das. As they say, alright my lover?
The Dorset dialect I grew up with used "gotten", not often, because the preferred verb was "to be" in the various forms, applied in non-standard ways. And I also encountered fall, sidewalk and a few other supposedly American uses of words and other Old English dialect words (I suspect, due to similarity to German). Which makes historical sense, as there were Pilgrim Fathers of West Country origin who travelled from Plymouth.
Not AFAIK. The Mayflower restocked at Plymouth but continued with its original passengers: the closest to Plymouth were the Eatons from Bristol (info from Wikipedia but supported by official Mayflower 400 site).
Your point about gender is interesting, and I remember research on Yorkshire dialects, which seemed to show that men had "stronger" dialects than women. I don't know if there is much research on this.
I do know that in the mill towns, the women (who tended to be the ones working the looms) often had a very distinct way of speaking so as to make it easier for others to lip-read, as they wouldn't be heard over the noise of the looms. I certainly knew a couple of old women who were like that. You may remember that Les Dawson used to do an impersonation of women who spoke like that. I was never aware of any men who adopted the same speaking habits.
I lived in Bristol and most people said Bristow, even la di das.
As I understand it, Bristol was originally Brigstowe, but gradually got renamed due to the local inhabitants' tendency to drop consonants and to add an "l' sound on the end of words that ended in a vowel sound. I once has a delightful book called "How't'speak prarper Brizzle." That certainly encouraged readers to add ls to the end of lots of words.
Yes, the old Les Dawson routine, but my grandmother worked in a cotton mill, and she used to do the mime routine as a joke, it was very facially exaggerated, but of course, silent.
Comments
Incidentally, is 'kept' spelt 'keeped' in the US?
Ah, “kept” is spelled (see what I did there?) and pronounced “kept” in the US. That is another example of the (relatively few) instances, like “knelt,” where -t is used instead of -ed in the States.
Some of the other examples I'm not sure where I'd land. I think I'd tend towards "spelled" more than "spelt". And probably "dreamed" as well. In that case there's the whole vowel shift question too..
Because an awful lot of supposed American innovations are in fact preservations of older forms. And there are other instances where both variants were originally common, but a different variant won out on each side of the Atlantic.
For example, this person disagrees that "leapt" is any older than "leaped". https://www.englishforums.com/English/LeapedOrLeapt/kkbb/post.htm
If I'd given a horse or machinery a bit of a rest, I say that I'd spelled it, and pronounce it like that rather that spelt.
(Keeled over is one of the maritime fossils in English)
Surely to keel over is to faint/pass out etc?
It is certainly true that using "got" as a participle is an innovation, and the American "gotten" is the original.
But thinking again, maybe I just hear "smell" more in an American context, and that's trained my expectations.
It's occurred to me that one indicator of which version of the past tense and which pronunciation you regard as normal for some of these may be whether in the dialect you speak, vowel in the verb is a long one or a short one. That's not universal. I'd query if the vowel in 'smelt' and 'dealt' is anything other than short anywhere. 'Learnt' and 'burnt' both have the same vowel sound to me, which I'd class as long. But to me, the vowels in 'dreamt', 'knelt' and in both 'lent' and 'leant' are short.
How about the keel row?
The chorus asks that the keel will row well.
Thanks for that snippet. I'd assumed that somehow it was connected with a ship's keel.
That appears to be true.
I grew up (North of Ireland) saying and writing 'gotten' and not knowing there was anything strange about it, or even that it had any connection with America. It may be that it started in olde Englande, travelled to Colonial America and then back to Ireland! Or maybe there were pockets of 'gotten' tucked away in the backwaters of Ulster!
It's rather that the use of "got" as past participle, pushing out gotten, arose in Britain and spread neither to Norn Irn nor to the US.
Gotten got to Norn Irn and the US when English got there.
Psalm 98, verse 2
With his own right hand, and with his holy arm: hath he gotten himself the victory.
The same wording, except the first "with", isin Tyndale.
This seems more likely than a reverse trip across the Atlantic.
Yes. Lots of things that are regarded as 'standard' British English are simply things that happened in the London area, and then spread. It's just a question of how far they spread.
Not round 'ere it won't. Derbyshire accent int goin' nowhere. We 'ave nowt to do wi' that London.
It's killing rural accents in the South East though. Of a time, you'd hear three accents in Oxfordshire (by way of example) - a rural accent not totally unlike that heard farther West - a rhotic, "this be moi laaand!"; a clipped RP from the colleges and middle to upper class; and a London influenced Estuarine in the towns. Guess which one's dying fastest and which one's growing...
Nothing wrong with it in and of itself. It's its pushing out of other accents and dialects that's more of a problem.
But one of the most interesting accents I've heard was from staff at the Bodleian in Oxford. It wasn't just that it was RP, it was a very - yes, probably clipped is the word, but I've only heard it there, not from middle class outside (and that includes college people, but not college people since school).
Where I live there are two - Estuary in the town, which has the excuse of being on the estuary, and the village back of the town, which I didn't realise was different until we had a student in school for teaching practice, heard her in the staffroom and thought she was my cousin. She lived in the same village. My cousins have kept that accent all their lives, despite having very senior jobs in a prestigious company in London, one being a multilingual secretary where secretary meant that and not typist.
Of course, one person's idea of a "classless"/ RP accent is another's idea of "posh" - and don't even start on U and non-U!
In relation to estuary, local builders in west London have a very strong accent, sounding like a caricature, but a Fulham accent was something to behold, so maybe it's that, or a hybrid.
Yes, that's why. My mother's family came from Northamptonshire and my great-uncle had a lovely, very distinctive Northants accent that I haven't heard now for years.
Out walking recently I heard an Essex accent for the first time for ages - old boy, looked like a retired farm worker. That too is not the same as the more ubiquitous Estuary.
There used to be a difference between north and south London accents - really could hear them, but that's blurred too.
We used to use "milk" as a test, /miok/ in Cockney, and estuary maybe. The loss of dialects, so sad. My Yorks grandad still said "thou", ("wheer's tha bin"?). Damn, damn and damnation.
When I was in shops in Cirencester where there is a quagmire of pronunciations I had to be very careful not to sound as if taking the michael. There are very posh speakers who say things like "We'll have to come here when we are doing your wardrobe," in a dress shop, not a DIY place, and there were locals with good Gloucestershire accents, calling the place something like Zoiren. Posh is Cisseter, even Cister, proclaimed loudly to be correct. I prefered Zoiren, but stuck with Cirencester, so everyone could think I was ignorant.
John Arlott (of blessed memory) was a proud "Basingstoke Boy" but I doubt that many people in Basingstoke speak like him these days. I knew of a few people in Southampton who had similar accents but they were getting rarer and rarer even 20 years ago (ie when I last lived there).
I grew up in north Hampshire, during that period when there were plenty of GLC overspill estates being created in the area. As a result, that area went distinctly "sub-Cockney" for a while - especially in the schools.
The one which caught me out when I'd lived for several years in Texas, and thought I'd found all the different words, was pot holder. My Texas friend looked blank when I asked her to pass the oven gloves. I can imagine there's a few other names for these, too.
Well, there are six endemic languages here, only two pairs (English and Scots, Irish and Gaelic) of which have any mutual intelligibility.
I think use of Estuary in London is also an age related thing - maybe under 50? Over 50 it would be cockney. But that is London only. It is spreading country wide, quicker in towns and cities.
It's almost like the topic deserves a different thread, another thread, a separate thread, all of its own.
The Dorset dialect I grew up with used "gotten", not often, because the preferred verb was "to be" in the various forms, applied in non-standard ways. And I also encountered fall, sidewalk and a few other supposedly American uses of words and other Old English dialect words (I suspect, due to similarity to German). Which makes historical sense, as there were Pilgrim Fathers of West Country origin who travelled from Plymouth.
Your point about gender is interesting, and I remember research on Yorkshire dialects, which seemed to show that men had "stronger" dialects than women. I don't know if there is much research on this. On Cissister, my wife's family are from there, and said that. Zoiren is lovely. I lived in Bristol and most people said Bristow, even la di das. As they say, alright my lover?
Not AFAIK. The Mayflower restocked at Plymouth but continued with its original passengers: the closest to Plymouth were the Eatons from Bristol (info from Wikipedia but supported by official Mayflower 400 site).
I do know that in the mill towns, the women (who tended to be the ones working the looms) often had a very distinct way of speaking so as to make it easier for others to lip-read, as they wouldn't be heard over the noise of the looms. I certainly knew a couple of old women who were like that. You may remember that Les Dawson used to do an impersonation of women who spoke like that. I was never aware of any men who adopted the same speaking habits.
As I understand it, Bristol was originally Brigstowe, but gradually got renamed due to the local inhabitants' tendency to drop consonants and to add an "l' sound on the end of words that ended in a vowel sound. I once has a delightful book called "How't'speak prarper Brizzle." That certainly encouraged readers to add ls to the end of lots of words.