The past tense of "lead" is spelled "led."

If you're British, the past tense of "spell" is spelled "spelt".

Niki wrote:No really, that is good to know. I think I have been spelling that wrong all this time.

Me too and had no clue, thanks ya!

Evan Sanders wrote: They could have gone with "Pb Zeppelin". (Get it? It's a chemistry joke.)

Reminds me of all the bumper stickers in Leadville, CO with "Pb-Ville" and all the very confused tourist, haha

Evan Sanders wrote: They could have gone with "Pb Zeppelin". (Get it? It's a chemistry joke.)

Another chemistry joke:

What the fucp?

Also, loose is the opposite of tight. Lose is the opposite of find.

This has been a public service announcement.

I hope none of this makes you loose your mind.

Owen Darrow wrote: Reminds me of all the bumper stickers in Leadville, CO with "Pb-Ville" and all the very confused tourist, haha

What confuses me is why any tourist would want to go to Leadville. :)

this conversation has gotten way too plumbic

I favor double Os

how do you know if the party is engineers or chemists? if the party is at 8p, engineers show up between 8 and 8:01; chemists diffuse in at their leisure but only in proportion to hot women at the party.

Mark Nelson wrote:I favor double Os

They're overrated.

I though it was leaded... as in "I leaded that route yesterday"
Thanks for setting me straight.

climber73 wrote:I though it was leaded... as in "I leaded that route yesterday"

I think it's actually "thought," not "leaded"!

dhayan wrote: No, you don't get it...it would be "I leded that route..."

If you tried but couldn't lead the route, would it be "unleaded", or no, I guess "unleded"...

Andy Hansen wrote:I don't think it really matters how you spell the word as long as the intended message is received by the readers. It's only prescriptivist grammarians who actually give a shit. Do you use proper grammar when you speak? No. And why isn't the past tense of "read" spelled like "red?" English grammar is a bunch of nonsense and prescribing to the grammatical idiocy as a tactic of one-upmanship outside of the professional realm is a waste of time.

What he said

The rules of English may be ridiculous and inconsistent, but it's still a beautiful language when spoken correctly. Preferably by someone with a British accent. Or Morgan Freeman.

Andy Hansen wrote:I don't think it really matters how you spell the word as long as the intended message is received by the readers. It's only prescriptivist grammarians who actually give a shit. Do you use proper grammar when you speak? No. And why isn't the past tense of "read" spelled like "red?" English grammar is a bunch of nonsense and prescribing to the grammatical idiocy as a tactic of one-upmanship outside of the professional realm is a waste of time.

I would agree with you in 99% of examples, but when it comes to this one (tense confusion), I'd disagree, and it only applies to the written word, so the point you make about speech is moot.

And how does pointing out a common and simple mistake make for "one-upmanship?" That's a pretty paranoid way of looking at it. I want someone to correct me when I'm wrong. So I guess it's philosophical difference; I'm comfortable in my stupidity, and appreciate a correction if it's warranted. I guess if I had great interpretive acuity, I wouldn't care either.

If you hear someone say "Well, that's a mute point" do you just cringe and let it go, so they go on saying it, sounding like an ass, or do you tell them "dude, the word is "moot."" Maybe they feel silly for a second, but you're doing them a favor, and they won't make that mistake again.

So back to the original point, how does this sentence read?

"After I till the garden, I grabbed me a beer and took me a break."

There's plenty of crappy grammar in there, but none of it interrupts the flow of reading except for the awkward use of "till" instead of "tilled."

So I guess that if only I didn't know that it should be "led" and not "lead," I'd be fine. In spoken word, it's clearly not a problem. My point was that it's awkward in written word.

Irregardless, photos make the trip report.

Wait, should it also be hung-dogged up a route?

Matt N wrote:Irregardless, photos make the trip report. Wait, should it also be hung-dogged up a route?

Now THAT is a question to ponder! I would assume that there is a very complicated rule about that, or at least a simple rule with a complicated-sounded name.

Irreregardless, I got your gist.

Matt N wrote:Irregardless, photos make the trip report. Wait, should it also be hung-dogged up a route?

I've always preferred the phrase, "falling up a route" to the term hangdog and it's ilk.

Andy Hansen wrote:I don't think it really matters how you spell the word as long as the intended message is received by the readers. It's only prescriptivist grammarians who actually give a shit. Do you use proper grammar when you speak? No. And why isn't the past tense of "read" spelled like "red?" English grammar is a bunch of nonsense and prescribing to the grammatical idiocy as a tactic of one-upmanship outside of the professional realm is a waste of time.

Yes. I do use proper grammar when I speak.
Yes. I do think you sound stupid when you don't.

And still more could be said about the use of "irregardless": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreg….

Evan Sanders wrote: They're overrated.

and yet, so necessary to my well being