burnt...burned...?

0 Both of them are past and past participal of "burn" and can be used interchangeably. Burnt is chiefly British.0-

0Footnote:02br
02br
00In BrE, you would almost always see the "burnt" form as the adjectival participle, e.g. "burnt toast", "burnt fingers", rather than "burned toast", "burned fingers".02br
02br
00As regards the simple past tense, my impression is that while "burned" and "burnt" may both be found in BrE, the latter is by far the more common.02br

0 Thank you both tremendously. =) 0-

There are many confusing answers to this question online, with most people saying they are one and the same simply because that's the easy way out. The answer is actually very simple:

Burned is the past sense of burn and is used when the verb has no object, i.e. no noun.



Burnt is used where the verb does have an object.

AnonymousBurned is the past sense of burn and is used when the verb has no object, i.e. no noun.

Burnt is used where the verb does have an object.

e.g. The fire burned brightly and She burnt her finger.

So, if there's a noun after it, it's 't', if not it's 'ed'

First time ever I read this. Any references, Anon?

(I've looked

Hemingway usesboth form mixed. It seems they can be exchanged for one another.

He writes in 'In our times': ...the burnt hillside... but also ...the burned country...

So guess it's all the same. Still strange he doesn't choose one way of writing it.

"verbs: past tenses -t/-ed
Both forms of ending are acceptable in http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/standbriteterm.htm, but the -t form is dominant--burnt, learnt, spelt--whereas