Hi Gordon, The OED has the following to say about the suffix -t as in meant: -t, suffix 1, formative of the pa. pple. in some weak verbs, for earlier -d and -ed (see -ed1), due usually to the devocalization of d after a breath consonant, as in nipped, nip’d, nipt. In some verbs the use of t for -ed goes back to OTeut., esp. in app. contracted or irregular verbs, as bought, brought, might, thought, wrought (Goth. bauht, brâht, maht, Þâht, waurht); in others it appears in WGer., as sought ( Goth. sôkid, OS. and OE. sôht); in others only in OE. as laught (læht), taught tæht, taht). But in the majority of cases the t is of later appearance, arising from the reduction of -ed to -’d, -d in Middle or Mod. Engl., with consequent devocalization of d, not only after breath consonants, as in dropt, nipt, crept, slept, swept, left, lost, tost, past, but, in certain cases, after liquids and nasals, as in felt, spelt, spilt, dreamt, burnt, meant, pent; also in contracted formations, such as built, bent, lent, sent, spent, girt, cast. But in many words where the pronunciation has t, the current spelling is -ed, e.g. blessed, dropped, hushed, passed for blest, dropt, husht, past. So there you are - meaned and mean'd (obsolete) and meant (current) but not mean't! Cheers, Liz in Melbourne Quoting Gordon Barlow <barlow@candw.ky>: > On another List was a message that used the word " mean't " - "meant" with an apostrophe before > the "t". It occurs to me that there may have been a stage in the history of written English when > words such as "meant", "dreamt", "learnt" etc might have been written with apostrophes, since the > -t was a corruption of -ed. Has anybody encountered the phenomenon in old Wills? (For all I > know, the classical plays and poems are full of examples, but I am willing to look ignorant, just > this once!) > > Gordon Barlow > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > SEARCHABLE archives for OLD-ENGLISH: > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=OLD-ENGLISH > >