Re: irregularities

Tommie L Powell wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 Robert Hailman wrote:
> > John Cowan wrote:
> > >
> > > Christophe Grandsire scripsit:
> > >
> > > > Is the spelling "spelt" out-dated? That's the one we learn in
> > > > English classes in France! We also learn that "spelled" can
> > > > be found, but must be considered incorrect in formal writing!
> > > > What's up with it then?
> > >
> > > It's archaic in North America, but the standard everywhere
> > > else,  AFAICT. It also reflects an actual difference in
> > > pronunciation, unlike most Commonwealth vs. American
> > > spelling differences.
> >
> > Hmm. Here in Canada, I write "spelt" and say /spElt/. "Spelled"
> > seems... wrong to me.
>
> In my dialect, I'd use "spelt" in reference to writing, but I'd use
> "spelled" to mean "temporarily took the place of" (as in "I spelled
> her at the receptionist desk while she took a break").
Really? I don't have that meaning for "spelled" at all. It's interesting
- related to the noun "spell", i.e. an moderate length of time.

I read, somewhere, something about the use of past tenses in -t and -ed
for the same verb (for a limited set of verbs, though) and differences
in usage. It related to British English, but it was interesting
nonetheless. I'll see if I can't find it.

--
Robert