Is this grammatically correct?
"the ship sunk yesterday."
"the ship sunk yesterday."
"the ship sunk yesterday."
Prescriptivist sorts would say that that is "incorrect", and it probably best be avoided in the formal literary language, but you could probably easily find someone (such as myself) using that in Real Life, due to the commonplace confusion of ablaut patterns for simple past and past participle (but not the suffix -en for many past participles, which is generally not confused in and of itself) in many dialects of English today.
It's correct Travis - in the prescripitivists' mind also.
It's a perfectly legitimate noun phrase.
"the ship (that was) sunk yesterday has been..."
It's a perfectly legitimate noun phrase.
"the ship (that was) sunk yesterday has been..."
<<It's correct Travis - in the prescripitivists' mind also.
It's a perfectly legitimate noun phrase.
"the ship (that was) sunk yesterday has been...">>
Well I don't really think that's what Position was asking about. To me, it actually sounds kind of unnatural to omit the "that was" in the example that you give.
As for the original question, I agree with Travis. You should probably avoid it if you're writing an essay, but it's quite common to hear expressions like it in real life.
It's a perfectly legitimate noun phrase.
"the ship (that was) sunk yesterday has been...">>
Well I don't really think that's what Position was asking about. To me, it actually sounds kind of unnatural to omit the "that was" in the example that you give.
As for the original question, I agree with Travis. You should probably avoid it if you're writing an essay, but it's quite common to hear expressions like it in real life.
>>Well I don't really think that's what Position was asking about. To me, it actually sounds kind of unnatural to omit the "that was" in the example that you give. <<
Such sounds unnatural to myself as well. Even though one may often omit relative pronouns and interrogative pronouns used as relative pronouns in English, one normally cannot omit "was" in such a manner at all.
Such sounds unnatural to myself as well. Even though one may often omit relative pronouns and interrogative pronouns used as relative pronouns in English, one normally cannot omit "was" in such a manner at all.
<Such sounds unnatural to myself as well. >
And your sentence seems unnatural to me. Why not "to me"?
And your sentence seems unnatural to me. Why not "to me"?
<No, it's "the ship SANK yesterday", position. >
Wrong, Uriel. Wrong.
The ship sank yesterday and all its crew lost.
The ship (that was) sank yesterday belonged to...
Wrong, Uriel. Wrong.
The ship sank yesterday and all its crew lost.
The ship (that was) sank yesterday belonged to...
But...
"The ship sunk yesterday was part of a fleet that..." (reduced relative clause.)
= "The ship (that was) sunk yesterday was part of a fleet that..."
A noun phrase with a relative modifying clause.
"The ship sunk yesterday was part of a fleet that..." (reduced relative clause.)
= "The ship (that was) sunk yesterday was part of a fleet that..."
A noun phrase with a relative modifying clause.
Actually, I take back what I had said before, having now thought about it and other similar cases. You can delete "that was", even though it would be clearer to not delete it in many cases.
One thing that is making this whole thing much more confusing is that "to sink" in English today has two separate meanings depending on whether it is used intransitively and transitively, with the subject of the intransitive use being equivalent to the *direct object* of the transitive use.
In most cases, one will assume the intransitive use, but M56 is insisting on certain usages by invoking the transitive use in the passive voice combined with the deletion of a relative pronoun and a following "was", enabling him to insist that you *can* formally use "sunk" in a position where one would formally use "sank", provided one ignores some potential following sentence which was NOT mentioned by the person who originally asked the question. Remember, the person asked about "The ship sunk yesterday" NOT "The ship sunk yesterday was part of a fleet that ...".
As a complete sentence, using just the formal literary language, it would thusly NOT be "The ship sunk yesterday" but JUST "The ship sank yesterday", ignoring how simple past and past participle forms in English dialects for strong verbs and irregular weak verbs vary far more than most other forms related to core grammar in English. 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).
Note though that in actual speech one can easily hear "sunk" being used as a simple past, and the past participle of "to sink" can include not only "sunk" but also "sank" and "sunken". I would also not be surprised if people time to time also used "sanken", considering that at least I myself have at times used the analogous "dranken" as a past participle for "to drink".
One thing that is making this whole thing much more confusing is that "to sink" in English today has two separate meanings depending on whether it is used intransitively and transitively, with the subject of the intransitive use being equivalent to the *direct object* of the transitive use.
In most cases, one will assume the intransitive use, but M56 is insisting on certain usages by invoking the transitive use in the passive voice combined with the deletion of a relative pronoun and a following "was", enabling him to insist that you *can* formally use "sunk" in a position where one would formally use "sank", provided one ignores some potential following sentence which was NOT mentioned by the person who originally asked the question. Remember, the person asked about "The ship sunk yesterday" NOT "The ship sunk yesterday was part of a fleet that ...".
As a complete sentence, using just the formal literary language, it would thusly NOT be "The ship sunk yesterday" but JUST "The ship sank yesterday", ignoring how simple past and past participle forms in English dialects for strong verbs and irregular weak verbs vary far more than most other forms related to core grammar in English. 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).
Note though that in actual speech one can easily hear "sunk" being used as a simple past, and the past participle of "to sink" can include not only "sunk" but also "sank" and "sunken". I would also not be surprised if people time to time also used "sanken", considering that at least I myself have at times used the analogous "dranken" as a past participle for "to drink".
I have "sank" for the past tense of "sunk" but I've heard "sunk" used. I use "sunk" for the past participle and "sunken" for the adjectival past participle. My usage is as follows:
--I sank your battleship
--I should've sunk your battleship
--The sunken ceiling needs to be repaired
--I sank your battleship
--I should've sunk your battleship
--The sunken ceiling needs to be repaired