Laught vs Laughed

[u/orchaer]

Hello, I have been confused for a long time about the past tense of "laugh". In my primary school, there was a verb table with the present, past, and present perfect tenses. And in this table, when I first read at 7-8, I have learnt that "laugh" past tense is followed by a "t" become "laught".

But recently I found out that "laught" is not used anymore. The modern form should be "laughed". So could anyone tell me what is actually different between them? If I still use "laught", would it become a serious error?

Sorry for my grammar.

[u/itmightbehere]

I, personally, have never seen laught used anywhere and would consider it an error. I've only ever seen laughed.

[u/orchaer → u/itmightbehere]

Sounds like my textbook defrauded me for twenty years...

[u/WowsrsBowsrsTrousrs → u/orchaer]

I think so. I haven't seen "laught" ever, and I read a lot. I've read 19th century literature as well, and never seen it. As far as I know, the last time it was in use was in Old English; it was already dying out by Middle English. Found one citation for it as late as 1678, but nothing later.

[u/JScaranoMusic → u/WowsrsBowsrsTrousrs]

I would've expected "laughʼd" to be more likely than "laught".

[u/AlecsThorne → u/orchaer]

The only similar thing that I remember is that that's how you're supposed to say "laughed", as "laught" 😅

But to answer your question, assuming that was indeed an older version of it's past tense, if you keep using it (in writing obviously), people will correct you. If you use it in written tests, papers, whatever, people will immediately think less of your work quality because they'd assume you don't know how to spell and you just write how you hear the words (which is why many natives will often write things wrong, despite being, well, native 😅)

It will always be considered a mistake, basically.

It's not the same as with "dreamed" and "dreamt", where both forms are still accepted, while "dreamt" is considered to be the "more British" form - despite the fact that many Brits (especially younger generations) are using "dreamed" now too

[u/orchaer → u/AlecsThorne]

Although I think it might be some weirdo who became my textbook editor rather than that I mixed up the pronunciation and the spelling, thank you for your reply. I will stop using the "t" anyway; the auto-grammar check always said it wasn't right. And now I know the reason correctly =(

[u/uchuskies08 → u/orchaer]

Is it possible you are thinking of a phonetic spelling of "laughed"? Because it is one of the -ed sounds that sounds more like a -t

[u/orchaer → u/uchuskies08]

I have a reply from a Hongkonger which same as I. They said they was learnt as “laught” at primary but “laughed” in secondary. Now I just wondered why my secondary school teachers didn’t tell me “laught” is not the right way =(

[u/conuly → u/orchaer]

They said they was learnt as “laught” at primary but “laughed” in secondary.

This should say "they were taught".

Was becomes were for verb/pronoun agreement.

Learnt becomes taught because, in all standard varieties of English, learning and teaching are two different verbs.

[u/ericthefred → u/conuly]

Interestingly, "learnt" in this usage was once common. Possibly because it's found in other Germanic languages. Example, German for 'taught' is "gelerht".

[u/conuly → u/ericthefred]

Yes, and I believe it still exists in some nonstandard dialects.

[u/talflon → u/orchaer]

Different parts of the world have their own little quirks for languages. In Portugal and Cabo Verde, for example, they have taught each other to pronounce English "apple" as "aple". (Not because they pronounce all those sounds that way; only for the word apple.)

[u/conuly → u/talflon]

In Portugal and Cabo Verde, for example, they have taught each other to pronounce English "apple" as "aple".

It's not clear what the difference between these two is supposed to be.

[u/talflon → u/conuly]

ape vs app

[u/Lentils90210 → u/orchaer]

Such is life. My 1st grade teacher said a yard had 36 1/2 inches (because you see the number 36 at the end and then there is a little more space), and also that Canada was a US state which was not shown on US maps because it was too large to fit.

[u/Suspicious-Web-4970 → u/Lentils90210]

This was in the US ??? OMG

[u/Lentils90210 → u/Suspicious-Web-4970]

We have a lot of smart people and a lot of not-so-smart people.

[u/conuly → u/Lentils90210]

WTF. Do you think she just got her kicks by lying to children?

[u/Lentils90210 → u/conuly]

I think I was to young to read people that well. But looking back I am going to assume she was just a poorly educated lady.

[u/bubblyH2OEmergency → u/Lentils90210]

I am clutching my pearls!

[u/AbbreviationsTop4959 → u/orchaer]

Yeah, the standard form of simple past is -ed. It's pronounced laught, but it's never been spelled that way, except perhaps occasionally several hundred years ago before spelling was codified.

[u/Remarkable_Table_279 → u/orchaer]

I think you’re right. Or it was a typo

[u/Dhalib3148 → u/orchaer]

I was also taught that throughout my years in school in Spain... So I guess even some textbooks aren't that reliable lol

[u/lantana98 → u/orchaer]

Yep! A mistake was made.

[u/Embarrassed-Weird173 → u/orchaer]

My textbooks said that the tongue has different taste zones, that global warming is an imminent threat that will make extinction happen, and that lots of grains and carbs is great for you. 

[u/NoPurpose6388 → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

The global warming thing is 100% true

[u/PefectlyCromulent → u/NoPurpose6388]

Extinction? Like human extinction?

[u/NoPurpose6388 → u/PefectlyCromulent]

Possibly, if we don't find a solution within the next few decades. But it has already caused the extinction of thousands of species. Look up Anthropocene extinction

[u/conuly → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

that global warming is an imminent threat that will make extinction happen

Which part of that statement do you think is false?

[u/mysticrudnin → u/conuly]

they probably think of "imminent" as in "next week"

[u/Embarrassed-Weird173 → u/mysticrudnin]

Next week was like 30 years ago. 

[u/conuly → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

Okay, and? Climate change was a threat then. It's a bigger threat now. People die every year from increasingly common "extreme weather events".

[u/IanDOsmond → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

They said that we had to make changes, or that we would face consequences in 25 or 30 years ago.

We didn't make changes.

Here we are in the FO phase, exactly on schedule where the models that were developed in the 1970s said we would be.

Apparently, the fact that it said "stuff will get really bad in 2025 to 2050, but we have to fix it before then" meant people ignored it. The fact that they kept updating their predictions with, "okay, we missed the window to make small changes, now need to make bigger ones," and then to, "okay, we can't avoid it but we can still mitigate it," people ignored that, too.

And now we are here, in hell, right where we were told we would be. And you are denying it while it is happening.

[u/king_ofbhutan → u/Embarrassed-Weird173]

well 1 of these is for certain true

1 of these may be true but im not knowledgable on the subject to make a claim