In English, there are two types of verbs: Regular verbs and Irregular verbs (the prefix ir- means "not")
In British English and in Amercian English the Simple Past Tense and the Past Participle of some of these verbs are spelled/spelt differently.
Do you prefer one spelling over the other?
Do you prefer one spelling more than the other?
Which of the two spellings do you prefer?
Do you have a preference?
To answer these questions, simply copy the list below and Strikethrough ( S ) your less favourite spelling (keep the one you prefer).
American British
burned burnt
dreamed dreamt
leaned leant
learned learnt
smelled smelt
spelled spelt
spilled spilt
spoiled spoilt
quit quitted
wet wetted
****************************************
Here are my preferences hidden by using white text colour.
To see my Canadian English preferences using your mouse, select everything below the American/British headings
American British
burned burnt
dreamed dreamt
leaned
learned
smelled
spelt
spilled
spoiled
quit
wet
quitted and wetted don't sound right to me except wetted only for specific occasions
"The plasterer wetted the walls to provide a key before applying the plaster" otherwise the dry walls would suck out all the water from the plaster and it would fall down.
"the baby wetted the bed" = doesn't sound right
"the baby wet the bed" sounds natural to me.
@Serg says: Irregular verbs also pass their course of life and gradually become regular.
Of course, I like the regular verbs better and it is clear that American English is more progressive in this regard (English generally fanatically cling to many obsolete traditions, and I personally don’t like it ...).
Really?
* Then how can we account for the fact that 'progressive' American English has 'fanatically' held on to the irregular past tense 'dove' - a form which became 'obsolete' in BrE many centuries ago? Or that 'gotten' fell out of use centuries ago in Britain, while the progressive Americans have clung on to it?
* Or that American English has retained the use of the formal subjunctive mood, whereas British English has all but abandoned it, in favour of the simpler indicative mood?
* Or that American speech has retained the original rhotic pronunciation of 17th-century England, while (most of) of England gradually dropped the post-vocalic 'r' from its accents?
* Or that American English has retained a strict convention of capitalising key words in titles, adhering to a formal set of rules which British English gave up long ago?
Doesn't this all suggest that it is American English which is the more formal, more traditional and more complex?
John is right about 'quitted' and 'wetted'.
'Quitted' doesn't exist. (So it's not surprising that Slava couldn't find it in her dictionary!). You can certainly strike that one off your list. We say 'He quit' - we never say 'quitted'.
'Wetted' is very unusual. It's occasionally used for a part of a process (as in John's example), but it is very rare. For the usual past tense, we say 'wet' as in 'He wet the corner of a handkerchief and wiped his face' - we don't say 'wetted'.
As for the others, most are more commonly used as adjectives e.g. spilt milk, a spoilt child or a piece of burnt toast. We could also use them as verbs, but we don't have to. If you listen to conversations among British English speakers, you are sure to hear spilled, smelled, burned, spoiled and spelled.
Two-column lists of this type are always inaccurate, and just perpetuate the myth that there are two completely separate forms of English. The reality of language is far more nuanced and complex.
Hi Richard,
At school I studied the British spelling and get used on it, so I prefer it more than the American spelling.
Thanks for your interesting sharings.
This is going to be directly related to my age
American British
burned burnt
dreamed dreamt
leaned leant
learned learnt
smelled smelt
spelled spelt
spilled spilt
spoiled spoilt
quit quitted
wet wetted
However I do accept all the American versions.
