What happened to English grammar?

I don't bloody believe it! I have never read anything so ridiculous as all this nonsense about insensitivity. Can't you people find something meaningful to argue about rather than a hypothetical gransnetter who had a hypothetical close relative or friend killed in a stupid and wholly avoidable skirmish (that's what it was officially) in 1982 and who is deeply wounded by comments about a sub-editor's grammar in an article about someone designated a naval hero who is best remembered, if remembered at all, for killing lots of other people by sinking a ship that was, at the time, sailing away from so-called British waters (albeit with the intention of returning).

Oh, absent, your post actually made me laugh out loud!

The whole thread is ridiculous really, isn't it?

Oh God. I'm too tired for more claptrap.

It was a campaign. And people died. And were horribly wounded.

Of course, in any war it's much more sensible to turn away and let the enemy kill you, isn't it?

Just oput of interest, how would you have avoided it? Given them the Falklands. Even though the islanders didn't want that.

Please allow us to benefit from your superior brain absent.

absent
Probably having a bit of a party in Buenos Aires tonight then.

"albeit with the intention of returning".

Right. They should have just waited.

I still think this thread should have been in Pedants' Corner and not in Chat. If it had to be started at all...

Churchill said Jaw,jaw,jaw was better than war,war,war. But then he died before he could join Gransnet. Might have changed his mind.

j08 Thank you for suggesting that I have a superior brain. I am deeply flattered. Lord Carrington, who I am sure you remember resigned over his mistakes about the Falklands, explained it very clearly.

Just for the record - is there a single gransnetter out there feeling distressed because criticism of a sub's grammar in the Daily Mail has reopened their sense of loss concerning the death in the Falklands campaign of someone they knew? Alternatively, has this whole thread turned something rather smaller than a molehill – a pimple, perhaps – into a mountain?

You are actually helping to turn it into a mountain. It had pretty well died a death!

There well may be a gransnetter feeling distressed for all we know !!

There are a great number out there !!

I'm getting very distressed by all the nasty comments on this thread! Please friends, do stop and let it go!

Galen

By no stretch of the imagination is it reasonable to see a connection between pointing out yet another example of a red top's bad English and any possible insult to a casualty of the Falklands War. I'm with absent on this - how on earth can some people see a teacup without blowing up a storm to fill it? This thread is NOT about the Falklands War, or even about the sinking of the Belgrano - it is about the poor literacy of the DM 9who else?) using "sunk" where they should have used "sank". End of.

Gracesmum Well said.
The thread title was.." What happened to English grammar?" Not rewriting the Falklands war, but six pages later???

I am glad I have been out all Day

Gracesmum Referring back to Bags' post of several pages ago where she says her Fowler's(1965) gives both sank and sunk as the past participle, my Concise Oxford(1982) is in agreement, so it seems that the OP is incorrect anyway, never mind all the ridiculous inferences about hurt feelings and insensitivity.

But the sunk in the DM headlineas originally quoted isn't a past participle. It's an active verb in the past tense.

And, Holby was rubbish jingl

Well said grumppa . You got there before me The OP was exactly spot on. The past simple tense is sank. The past participle is used to form the present perfect tense : the one that includes has/have in which case both options may be acceptable though I would always use sunk eg it has sunk or it has been sunk (passive).So everyone is kind of correct but the distinction between the tenses has not been made .

'I still think this thread should have been in Pedants' Corner and not in Chat. If it had to be started at all'

Ana, can you please tell me why I should not have started this entirely innocent thread, which was ridiculously distorted for very obvious personal reasons.
Perhaps you can tell me which subjects I am allowed to post about?

I still maintain that the headline should have read that the ship either 'sank' or 'was sunk', as that is normal usage, but it doesn't really matter, does it? Certainly not worth all the unpleasantness, which is certainly not of my doing.

grummpa, I corrected past participle to "past tense" later in the thread. Past tense is what it says in Fowler. So sunk is correct. So is sank.

Since we are being linguistically pedantic, it isn't really a grammar issue at all in that case, but a diction issue which, to be honest, is what I thought right at the start.

So the whole thread is a heap of bullshit

I love gransnet (except it’s raining sheep and goats here) (they have sheep in the Falklands too).

I'm glad you started it, greatnan. I haven't had such a good laugh at some people's ridiculousness (not yours) for a looong time. Yo ho ho. It has been hilarious! Every time I use the word sunk (or sank) now I shall have a wee chuckle. In fact, I'll probably try to find ways to use sunk, just so I can reminisce and chortle to myself.

I shall I say 'I thunked you for your present' in future then!

'I still think this thread should have been in Pedants' Corner and not in Chat. If it had to be started at all'

Ana, can you please tell me why I should not have started this entirely innocent thread, which was ridiculously distorted for very obvious personal reasons.
Perhaps you can tell me which subjects I am allowed to post about?

I still maintain that the headline should have read that the ship either 'sank' or 'was sunk', as that is normal usage. It was a simple past tense, so participles do not come into it But it doesn't really matter, does it? Certainly not worth all the unpleasantness, which is certainly not of my doing.