Which to use
“neglect” and “neglected” are a confusable English pair: similar on the page, but distinct in meaning, check the gloss before you choose.
- #9,784
- “neglect” frequency rank
- #9,919
- “neglected” frequency rank
- 19703
- confusion score
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | neglect | neglected |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | To fail to care for or attend to something. | simple past and past participle of neglect |
Where the eye mixes neglect and neglected
Muted = shared; highlighted = the visual trap. They share 7 letters in sequence.
Look-alike desk: neglect vs neglected
A purely visual mix-up. neglect (/nɪˈɡlɛkt/) and neglected (/nɪˈɡlɛktɪd/) are said differently, so reading them aloud is the quickest way to catch the wrong one. On the page they stay close: they differ by 2 extra letter(s) - “neglect” sits inside “neglected”. Our composite confusion score for this pair is 19703, derived from the frequency rank of both members and their visual similarity.
neglect is recorded at frequency rank #9,784, classified as averb, pronounced /nɪˈɡlɛkt/. neglected is at rank #9,919, tagged as averb, pronounced /nɪˈɡlɛktɪd/.
Glosses for this pair are partially populated in our dataset, but the full side-by-side definitions above should still guide you to the right choice.
With a confusion score of 19703, this pair ranks #436,336 of 530,003 scored English confusable pairs - a relatively easy-to-tell-apart pair.
Orthographic DNA of neglect vs neglected
Shared letters: ceglnt. Private to "neglect": -. Private to "neglected": d.
"neglect" · 7 letters · shape CVCCVCC · "neglected" · 9 letters · shape CVCCVCCVC
Known mistypes of this pair
Frequently Asked Questions
Can "neglect" and "neglected" be used interchangeably?
Which is more common, "neglect" or "neglected"?
Useful next steps
Eye-level mix-up between "neglect" and "neglected" is sorted above. Next: full entries or other pairs that share a letter shape.
- Full dictionary entry for "neglect" with definition, IPA, and generated misspellings. Word entry
- Full dictionary entry for "neglected" - compare definitions side by side with the headword page. Word entry
- This pair ranks #436,336 of 530,003 scored English confusable pairs in this corpus vintage. Corpus statistics
- Recorded mistypes exist for at least one side of this pair, useful when a spell-checker or OCR lands on the wrong form. See mistypes
Confusion rank #436,336 of 530,003 scored English pairs, corpus vintage 2026-09-03, not spelling advice.