"the ship sunk yesterday."

Remember, the person asked about "The ship sunk yesterday" NOT "The ship sunk yesterday was part of a fleet that ...".>

Correction, Travis. The person asked about:

"the ship sunk yesterday."

No capital "t", so not a sentence but a NOUN PHRASE. I think that is where you are going wrong. You are imagining a sentence, which it isn't.

Here's a few more noun clauses with "missing" relative clauses:

the painting stolen last week

the clock hung by the door

And, one famous example:

the boat floated down the river sank

A: The ship.

B: Which ship?

A: The one sunk yesterday/The one that was sunk yesterday/The ship sunk yesterday/The ship that was sunk yesterday.

If you think that the verb "to sink" is a problem in passive constructions, see how tricky "to recover" can be.

Three bodies recovered in rubble.
Three patients recovered in hospital.
Three sofas recovered in velvet.

Think "newsheadlines".

Travis wrote:

<To put it out simply, the principle parts for "to sink" in formal literary English are "sink" (simple present), "sank" (simple past), "sunk" (past participle). >

That's correct, Travis, and it is the past participle form that is used for the passive construction:

the ship (that was) sunk yesterday

lu wrote:

<"the ship sunk yesterday."

There's a full stop so it should be "sank". >

But no capital "t" to begin the construction. So, how do you know it is supposed to be a sentence?

And, even if it were a sentence (or sentence fragment) it could be:

A: The ship.

B: Which ship?

A: The one sunk yesterday./The one that was sunk yesterday./The ship sunk yesterday./The ship that was sunk yesterday.

Sorry if I confused anyone. It was not meant to be a sentence.

It was...

"the boat sank yesterday"

Individuals are not necessarily likely to be inclined to follow strict literary forms in posts on forums, and that includes capitalization in quoted sentences. Taking that in mind, considering that the exact words mentioned were "the ship sunk yesterday", I would assume that that is what they happened to mean, considering that they did not ask anything about passives or relative clauses at all. You have very weak grounds on which to assume that they really intended to mean a noun phase and not a sentence, just on a formal literary convention that is unlikely to be strictly followed in the medium in question in the first place, and in particular in the context, which does not lend itself in any fashion to the suggestion of such.

Ayeee! Today is a bad day for me. My dog died this morning and I'm very confused.

It was supposed to be...

"the boat sunk yesterday"

Okay, now it has been made clear that such was actually meant to be a noun phrase after all, I would say that "the boat sunk yesterday" as a noun phrase would be just fine (and "the boat sank yesterday" would not be what one would use in formal writing, but is still something one may hear in speech).

Travis, I think you have now to decide on your take of the thread question as a "noun phrase", don't you. The reason I took it as a noun phrase is because Position's question is not unusual in the world of linguistics. Even the construction with "sunk" has been asked about a thousand times by students wanting to get a bit of controversy going.

So, what's your take now?

Sorry about your dog, Position.

Your "the ship sunk yeasterday" is correct usage if meant to be a noun phrase with an omitted "reduced relative clause".

<(and "the boat sank yesterday" would not be what one would use in formal writing, but is still something one may hear in speech). >

Did anyone ask about that construction?

Hey, All, what do you think of this one?

"The bottle sunk, I returned to the dunes."

M56:

Read the thread title and the original question put forward in the post; what is specifically said is not "the ship sunk yesterday" but "the ship sunk yesterday.", with a PERIOD at the end within the quotes. For your insisting on a lowercase "t" being used meaning that it must be a noun phrase, a period was explicitly placed at the end of the words, just before the closing quotes, which would normally make it explicitly clear that a sentence had been meant. This was part of why I myself was specifically opposed to the interpretation of it as just a free-floating noun phrase until the user position actually later specifically stated that they really meant a noun phrase and not a sentence.

<Read the thread title and the original question put forward in the post; what is specifically said is not "the ship sunk yesterday" but "the ship sunk yesterday.", with a PERIOD at the end within the quotes. >

Yes, Travis, that's already been mentioned twice before. Just as you assume that the lack of capitalisation could have been an error, I too can imagine that the inclusion of a period was also an error. Isn't that so?

<For your insisting on a lowercase "t" being used meaning that it must be a noun phrase,>

Do you really read my posts fully? I gave other reasons as to why I thought it was a noun phrase.

<a period was explicitly placed at the end of the words, just before the closing quotes, which would normally make it explicitly clear that a sentence had been meant.>

To you, yes. I thought wider.