BBC News: Three villages retook in Ukraine

Elegran

In my brain, a sentence beginning "Three villages retook . . " should go on to say what it was that the three villages (the subject of the verb) retook. Did the villages retake a piece of land that belonged to them? If so that was pretty good going for just three villages to do on their own.

If they mean that someone else (subject of the verb) retook the three villages, then it should read that the "Three villages were retaken . ." by whoever it was.

I remember the Good Old Days, when the BBC was an example of good grammar, spelling, and even diction. The diction was a bit plum-in-mouth but the grammar and spelling were the gold standard for everyone.

It certainly was, and the benefit, we could understand every word spoken.

Oh b**g**r. I meant to say "The sentence is in the passive form"

"The villages were retaken" is correct because the ad fence is in the passive form. If the villages had been doing the retaking, then "the villages retook" would be correct.

That 's why it sounds wrong.

Elegran

keepingquiet

I'm sure it matters not a jot to the people who were re-tooking...

You are right in humanitarian terms, of course, but getting the English language right in a UK news item wouldn't have involved anyone in imposing any more pain on anyone.

I think if the subject matter had been a little more trivial I also would have been as pedantic- but focussing on the words used distracted me from the actual message.

I note on Judge Judy some Americans using ‘tookan’. She’s always quick to point out there’s no such word!

keepingquiet

I'm sure it matters not a jot to the people who were re-tooking...

You are right in humanitarian terms, of course, but getting the English language right in a UK news item wouldn't have involved anyone in imposing any more pain on anyone.

In my brain, a sentence beginning "Three villages retook . . " should go on to say what it was that the three villages (the subject of the verb) retook. Did the villages retake a piece of land that belonged to them? If so that was pretty good going for just three villages to do on their own.

If they mean that someone else (subject of the verb) retook the three villages, then it should read that the "Three villages were retaken . ." by whoever it was.

I remember the Good Old Days, when the BBC was an example of good grammar, spelling, and even diction. The diction was a bit plum-in-mouth but the grammar and spelling were the gold standard for everyone.

It’s irritating isn’t it I would have thought retaken
I d never say something had been retook

I'm sure it matters not a jot to the people who were re-tooking...

Doesn't it all depend whether you are using it as a transitive or intransitive verb? So whether there is a direct or indirect object means that only one way is correct, depending on the meaning.
It's all to do with who is doing the action to whom.

Sounds very wrong to me. ‘Ukraine retook 3 villages’, would surely be correct, or ‘Three villages were retaken by Ukraine.’
(I have a nasty feeling they were retaken by the Russians, though.)

Sillymoo, where did you look it up?

My dictionary, (Chambers) gives retook as the past tense, and retaken as the past participle.

This is certainly what I have always said and heard, so to me the headline is wrong.

The headline should either have been Three villages retaken in Ukraine , which is a poor headline, as it begs the question "by whom?" Or if the BBC meant what I assume, "Ukraine retook three villages this morning/ yesterday".

Retaken

Just looked it up and apparently either retook or retaken is correct.