Verb morphology • The past tense and past participle of the verbs
learn,
spoil,
spell,
burn,
dream,
smell,
spill,
leap, and others, can be formed with
-t (
learnt,
spoilt, etc.) or with the regular
-ed (
learned,
spoiled, etc.). In BrE, both irregular and regular forms are current, but for some words (such as
smelt and
leapt) there is a strong tendency towards the irregular forms, especially by users of
Received Pronunciation. For other words (such as
dreamed,
leaned, and
learned) the regular forms are somewhat more common.The
t endings may be encountered frequently in older American texts, especially poetry. Usage may vary when the past participles are used as adjectives, as in
burnt toast. (The two-syllable form
learnèd , usually written without the
accent, is used as an adjective to mean "educated" or to refer to academic institutions in both BrE and AmE.) Finally, the past tense and past participle of
dwell and
kneel are more commonly
dwelt and
knelt in both standards, with
dwelled and
kneeled as common variants in the US but not in the UK. •
Lit as the past tense of
light is more common than
lighted in the UK; American English uses
lit to mean "set afire" / "kindled" / "made to emit light" but
lighted to mean "cast light upon" (e.g., "The stagehand
lighted the set and then
lit a cigarette."). Conversely, British English favours
fitted as the past tense of
fit generally, whereas the preference of American English is more complex: AmE prefers
fitted for the metaphorical sense of having made an object [adjective-]"fit" (
i.e., suited) for a purpose; in spatial transitive contexts, AmE uses
fitted for the sense of having made an object conform to an unchanged object that it surrounds (e.g., "
fitted X around Y") but
fit for the sense of having made an object conform to an unchanged object that surrounds it (e.g., "
fit[-past] X into Y"); and for the spatial senses (both intransitive and transitive) of having been matching with respect to contour, with no alteration of either object implied, AmE prefers
fit ("The clothes [past-]
fit."; "The clothes [past-]
fit me well."). • The past tense of
spit "
expectorate" is
spat in BrE,
spit or
spat in AmE. AmE typically has
spat in figurative contexts, for example, "He spat out the name with a sneer", or in the context of expectoration of an object that is not saliva, for example, "He spat out the foul-tasting fish" but
spit for "expectorated" when it refers only to the expulsion of phlegm or saliva. • The past participle of
saw is normally
sawn in BrE and
sawed in AmE (as in
sawn-off/sawed-off shotgun). • The past participle
gotten is rarely used in modern BrE, which generally uses
got except when fixed in old expressions such as
ill-gotten gains and in the minority of dialects that retain the older form. The American dictionary Merriam-Webster, however, lists "gotten" as a standard past participle of "get." According to the
Compact Oxford English Dictionary, "The form
gotten is not used in British English but is very common in
North American English" • AmE, but not BrE, has
forgot as a less common alternative to
forgotten for the past participle of
forget. • AmE further allows other irregular verbs, such as
dive (
dove) or
sneak (
snuck), and often mixes the
preterite and past participle forms (
spring–
sprang, US also
spring–
sprung), sometimes forcing verbs such as
shrink (
shrank–
shrunk) to have a further form, thus
shrunk–
shrunken. These uses are often considered nonstandard; the
AP Stylebook in AmE treats some irregular verbs as colloquialisms, insisting on the regular forms for the past tense of
dive,
plead and
sneak.
Dove and
snuck are usually considered nonstandard in Britain, although
dove exists in some British dialects and
snuck is occasionally found in British speech.
Use of tenses • With the words such as
already and
yet Past Simple is more commonly used in American English while Present Perfect is more common in British English. • In BrE,
have got or
have can be used for possession and
have got to and
have to can be used for the
modal of necessity. The forms that include
got are usually used in informal contexts and the forms without
got in contexts that are more formal. In American speech the form without
got is used more than in the UK, although the form with
got is often used for emphasis. Colloquial AmE informally uses
got as a
finite verb for these meanings—for example,
I got two cars,
I got to go. • In
conditional sentences if clauses, US spoken usage often substitutes in the subordinate clause
would and
would have (usually shortened to ''[I]'d
and would've
) for the simple past and for the pluperfect (If you'd leave now, you'd be on time
. / If I would have [would've] cooked the pie we could have [could've] had it for lunch
as opposed to If you left now, you'd be on time
. / If I had cooked the pie we could have had it for lunch
). This tends to be avoided in writing because it is often still considered non-standard although such use of would
is widespread in spoken US English in all sectors of society. Some reliable sources now label this usage as acceptable US English and no longer label it as colloquial. (There are situations where would
is used in British English too in seemingly counterfactual conditions, but these can usually be interpreted as a modal use of would
: If you would listen to me once in a while, you might learn something
.) In cases in which the action in the if
clause takes place after that in the main clause, use of would
in counterfactual conditions is, however, considered standard and correct usage in even formal UK and US usage: If it would make Bill happy, I'd [I would] give him the money.
Some prescriptions about the distinction exist, which are now esoteric in AmE. for example, I should like to leave
is no longer a formal way to say I would like to leave
in modern AmE. Expressions like I should be happy to go'' are rather formal even in BrE. • The
periphrastic future "
be going to" is about twice as frequent in AmE as in BrE. • Use of "do" as a pro-predicate is almost exclusively British usage. :*Example: "Did Frank love it?" — "He must have done." :The AmE response would be "He must have." omitting the form of "do". The BrE usage is commonly found with all forms of "do", for example: •
catch up ("to reach and overtake"): Transitive or intransitive in BrE, strictly intransitive in AmE (
to catch somebody up/
to catch up with somebody). A transitive form exists in AmE, with a different meaning:
to catch somebody up means that the subject will help the object catch up, rather the opposite of the BrE transitive meaning. •
cater ("to provide food and service"): Intransitive in BrE, transitive or intransitive in AmE (
to cater for a banquet/
to cater a banquet). •
cater to ("to allow for a possibility"):
to cater to the speaker not turning up. A British speaker would probably recast the sentence. •
claim: Sometimes intransitive in BrE (used with
for), strictly transitive in AmE. •
meet: AmE uses intransitively
meet followed by
with to mean "to have a meeting with", as for business purposes (
Yesterday we met with the CEO), and reserves transitive
meet for the meanings "to be introduced to" (
I want you to meet the CEO; she is such a fine lady), "to come together with (someone, somewhere)" (
Meet the CEO at the train station), and "to have a casual encounter with". BrE uses transitive
meet also to mean "to have a meeting with"; the construction
meet with, which actually dates back to
Middle English, appears to be coming back into use in Britain, despite some commentators who preferred to avoid confusion with
meet with meaning "receive, undergo" (
the proposal was met with disapproval). The construction
meet up with (as in
to meet up with someone), which originated in the US, has long been standard in both dialects. •
provide: Strictly
monotransitive in BrE, monotransitive or
ditransitive in AmE (
provide somebody with something/
provide somebody something). •
protest: In sense "oppose", intransitive in BrE, transitive in AmE (
The workers protested against the decision/
The workers protested the decision). The intransitive
protest against in AmE means "to hold or participate in a demonstration against". The older sense "proclaim" is always transitive (''protest one's innocence''). •
visit: In BrE, the verb is transitive; AmE uses both
visit and
visit with where the object is a person or persons. •
write: In BrE, the indirect object of this verb usually requires the preposition
to, for example, ''I'll write
to my MP
or I'll write
to her
(although it is not required in some situations, for example when an indirect object pronoun comes before a direct object noun, for example, I'll write
her a letter
). In AmE, write
can be used monotransitively (I'll write my congressman
; I'll write him'').
Complementation • The verbs
prevent and
stop can be found in two different constructions: "prevent/stop someone
from doing something" and "prevent/stop someone doing something". The latter is well established in BrE, but not in AmE. • Some verbs can take either a to+infinitive construction or a
gerund construction (for example,
to start to do something/
to start doing something). For example, the gerund is more common: • In AmE than BrE, with
start,
begin,
omit,
enjoy; • In BrE than AmE, with
love,
like,
intend. ==Presence (or absence) of syntactic elements==