Question

"My house burnt down to the ground last week, something I've learnt alot from".

This is what the English, the Canadians, the scottish, the Welsh, the Australians and the New Zealanders would say.

Now I'm wondering if the Southerners would say it in the same way...

Thank you.

You mean burnt --> burned, learnt --> learned? I think that is more common in the USA.

burn --> burned --> burnt

learn --> learned --> learnt

There you go guys.

That being said, I don't know if the southerners would use burnt and learnt. Perhaps in certain regions, not sure. I know for a "fact" that the northerners don't use it, at least I've never ever heard it.

Yes, some Southerners would say "burnt" as in "burnt to a crisp" and

"He burnt up in that fahr back in fifty-four." Far=fire

Maybe some people would say "learnt" as well. I'll have to listen to country people I hear in the city.

I did (and I am not making this up) hear a woman in her thirties or forties call Arthritis "Arthur-itis" recently.

I wonder whar she done learnt to speak like that! Me thinks it whar back in de hills someawheres.

The "t" versions tend to be more acceptable in the US in the past participle sense ("It was burnt to a crisp" versus "It burned to a crisp"), but Southerners seem to make less of a distinction between past participle and past tense.

Also, it's "a lot". When it's one word, it's "allot", and it means something completely different.

We use both burned and burnt in the US, but not really learnt for learned.

"Alot" is considered an acceptable variation of "a lot", much as "alright" can substitute for "all right". Tastes vary, but none are now wrong. To allot, however, is a different word entirely, as you point out.

<<We use both burned and burnt in the US, but not really learnt for learned.

"Alot" is considered an acceptable variation of "a lot", much as "alright" can substitute for "all right". Tastes vary, but none are now wrong. To allot, however, is a different word entirely, as you point out.>>

Interesting Uriel. Would you say that you'd tend to use "burnt" more as an adjective, as in "burnt toast", "the toaster is burnt", rather than in the past tense, where "burned" is used, e.g. "the house burned down".

To me, *"burned toast" and *"the house burnt down" just don't seem like things I would say.

Both burnt and burned can be used as an adjective, but only burned can be used as a verb.

<but only burned can be used as a verb. >

Not true. "I burnt the toast" is as acceptable as "I burned the toast", especially in the UK.

<<"Alot" is considered an acceptable variation of "a lot">>
Considered by whom? "Alright" is at least defensible on the grounds that it functions as a single word (its meaning doesn't follow from the phrase "all right"), but "alot" is just wrong.

>>>Not true. "I burnt the toast" is as acceptable as "I burned the toast", especially in the UK.

I wasn't talking about BE.

<"Alot" is considered an acceptable variation of "a lot">

I'm surprised you say that. What is your statement based on, and in what contexts would "alot" be considered "acceptable"?

You appear to be right. I've just seen alot so often that I no longer notice it, but apparently it's still frowned upon in dictionaries, so it has NOT achieved "acceptable" status. I was wrong.

I usually only use "burnt" as an adjective, not as a verb, but I don't think it has completely died out in the US. It's just not near as common as burned.