Is there a difference between saying a place is "well-lighted" versus "well-lit" or is it just stylistic?

Question

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?

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

score 1 · Answer 1 · answered Sep 13 '11 at 20:28

‘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.

Is there a difference between saying a place is "well-lighted" versus "well-lit" or is it just stylistic?

1 Answers1