English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Possible Duplicate:
What's the difference between “well-lighted” and “well-lit”?

I feel that "well-lit" means there is enough light whereas "well-lighted" implies someone actually set-up the lighting and did it well. Of course, really, "lighted" is just the regular version of the irregular "lit", so I suppose they should mean the same thing assuming we accept "lighted".

What is the reality when it comes to these terms?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Thursagen, Daniel, mmyers, aedia λ, Mr. Shiny and New 安宇 Sep 13 '11 at 20:28

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

Hello and welcome to EL&U, Jeff. Your question was closed as a duplicate, because we hope the similar question will be able to provide you an answer. Take a look at the other related question, “Dreamed” vs. “dreamt”, “leaped” vs. “leapt”, “lighted” vs. “lit”, too :o) Again, welcome! – aedia λ Sep 13 '11 at 20:34

‘Lit’ ‘and ‘lighted’ are alternative forms of both the past tense and past participle of ‘light’, but corpus evidence suggests that ‘lit’ is found considerably more often than ‘lighted’, particularly in American English. I wouldn’t say there was normally any difference in meaning, but I think the distinction you make is valid.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.