Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2024 January 18

= January 18 =

Past participle of "to burn"
In my mind it is "burned", but I keep seeing it on Wikipedia as "burnt", which I consider an adjective. As a North American who spent years in London I find it *possible* that I merely hadn't noticed a small ENGVAR, and have been skipping the word in copyedits, but due to my current editing patterns I tend to see it in constructions like "the Nazis burnt all the synagogues" or "all the synagogues had been burnt by the Nazis", from which it would be a shame to detract with improper English.

Can someone reassure me that this usage is correct in standard British English? Thanks Elinruby (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that both forms can also be used as adjectives and I think "burnt" is generally preferred in Brit Eng? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As long as people here tell me it is correct in some form of standard English I would be delighted to stop worrying about this. I'll check back in a few days, thanks. Elinruby (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby: When in doubt, check some reliable sources:
 * Cambridge reports burnt and burned are both valid verb forms for the past tense and past participle (in British English), with the order reversed for American English.
 * Collins notes that the "past tense and past participle is burned in American English, and burned or burnt in British English".
 * dictionary.com lists verb forms as burned or burnt in American English, and burnt or burned for the British English version.
 * Meriam-Webster is, I assume, American-focused, and lists burned or burnt as verb forms of burn, in that order.
 * All the above show burnt as an adjective in both English variants, and burned as a verb only. So your example of "the Nazis burnt all the synagogues" seems correct in both versions of English, although an American might prefer "burned" in that context. (Other English variants are available.) Bazza (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Meriam-Webster here says: "Both burned and burnt are acceptable forms of burn. Both words can be used as adjectives, such as "burnt toast" or "burned toast," and both are acceptable as the past tense, although "burned" is more common in American English."? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123: Perhaps M-W is not such a WP:RS after all: that contradicts its own definition of burned. Bazza (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Perhaps we should both strike out. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me try rephrasing. If the sentence is "The Nazis had burnt down the synagogue", is there anything there that strikes anyone as wrong, or so distracting from the meaning of the sentence, that I should change it? It bothers me a bit, but I have already wrapped my mind around the fact that multiple cultures and educational systems have left me with a rather idiosyncratic ENGVAR, and if that is what this is, the topic area has actual issues with which I could more fruitfully and would rather concern myself. I see you are realizing why I wasn't sure, but that is the context for the question. Or is there agreement on what is the most reliable dictionary would be? Elinruby (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Burnt" is a verb per the OED . You cannot probably find a better RS than that! Modocc (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence absolutely does not bother me (from a grammatical standpoint, of course: its content does). I regard that burnt as completely normal, and if I saw burned there, I would probably think "oh, that's an American writing that". ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Given my stay in the US, it's entirely plausible that my English would have American elements.
 * I am hearing that "burnt" is correct and it seems the British are unanimous that it's standard English, ie there is no reason to change that verb. That's good; I am looking for certitude because yes, the content is disturbing enough. I'll check back in a few days to make sure there's no dissents. Thank you everyone for the brainpower. Elinruby (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What's the contradiction? Nardog (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Certitude is difficult to achieve.  Oxford English Dictionary says:

The distinction in usage between the two modern forms of the pa. t., and pa. pple. is difficult to state with precision. Burnt is now the prevailing form, and its use is always permissible; burned is slightly archaic, and somewhat more formal in effect; it occurs more frequently as pa. t., or in combination with the auxiliary have than as ppl. adj.]

The bracket at the end seems superfluous. 82.32.75.206 (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * really. I would have guessed the opposite, but apparently that just shows what I know. Interesting that this always happens with very basic words. I've had this in French with "sit", "shoe", and "name".
 * "Prevailing" would seem to be the way to go. Elinruby (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The OED sense is talking about BrE, I presume? I guess I agree that "burnt" is acceptable in all forms, but I think I would use it mainly in fixed forms like "burnt offering".  I would consider "burned" the main form.
 * I think I would find "burned" almost mandatory in cases that would correspond to a Romance-language imperfect tense. We talked as the fire burned, not *...burnt.  Curious whether our British friends would agree with this last one at least. --Trovatore (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Burned" sounds more like past continuous to me, so yes better than "burnt" for a UK fire. But then I'm all burnt out over this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I really do find this particular point kind of interesting. It seems like there's an intuition that we both share that "burned" works better for this sentence.  I wonder, is it more about the imperfective aspect, or is it that it's the intransitive use of "burn", or is it that this sense of "burn" is unaccusative (the fire not really having agency over its burning)?  I wouldn't really have predicted that any of those would control which ending to use for the past. --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there a parallel here with spelled and spelt? As an Australian I routinely use spelt as the past participle of spell, but I have had it "corrected" to spelled several times by American editors. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm British and have been accused of ignorance and illiteracy by Americans for using "spelt". "Smelt" would probably produce the same response. DuncanHill (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So, in card games, are they dealed in the States? ;-)
 * And, more seriously, I still have trouble seeing "dove" rather than "dived". Bazza (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I often wonder for a moment how a pigeon got into the narrative ColinFine (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Spilled and spilt? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Girded/girt. 2A00:23C7:9C86:4301:DCCF:5E34:2FB:138D (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here in Australia, the fourth line of our national anthem tells the world "Our home is girt by sea". We are very proud of being girt. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought I knew "Waltzing Mathilda", but I don't remember that line. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But hope she's not "Dirty Girty from number thirty". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of MOS:COMMONALITY, (except meaning the grain),  (except meaning the fish), and  are probably usually best avoided in Wikipedia article space, because their counterparts, , and  are generally acceptable to British readers whereas the former forms come across as affected or archaic to American readers (assuming they recognize them at all).  In the other direction, we should probably prefer  to  and  to  (except in the meaning of "alternating"), for the reciprocal reason. --Trovatore (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY. I'm sure American readers are as comfortable with the British English variations in spelling, which aren't seen by their writers as archaic or "affected", as British (and other) English readers have got(ten) with American variants. The spirit of WP:ENGVAR encourages us to bear in mind an article's natural, agreed or original variant, to achieve consistency regardless, and use WP:COMMONALITY when choosing vocabulary. Bazza (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Whilst" is alive and well on social media, where users typically (there are some noble exceptions) seem to have little appreciation of the normal rules and conventions of grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. I've asked people why they use "whilst" where "while" would do just as well, and they tell me that "while" is for informal use, while "whilst" is for formal use. How their atrocious utterances qualify as formal use, and how they seem oblivious to all the other rules but adhere rigidly to this fictitious one, escape me, but there you have it. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I tend (not rigidly) to use "while" before words starting with a consonant, and "whilst" before words with a vowel, but that's just me. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.24.47.60 (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do Brits say “Who smelt it dealt it”? —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course! DuncanHill (talk)