Last night

Question

Hi, Morning everyone.1. The bridge has broken after last night's storm.2. The bridge has broken after the storm last night.To me, the first underlined is Ok and fine because 'last night' modifies storm. However the second underlined seems a bit ungrammatical because a noun (night) follows a noun  directly.To me, 'after the storm last night' is an adjunct in this sentence, and 'last night' is a noun phrase in relation to the storm.Do you advise me to put "at" between them?The bridge has broken after the storm at last night.Thank you for your precious advice.

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

Anonymous1. The bridge has broken after last night's storm.
2. The bridge has broken after the storm last night.

Both of these are fine, except I would use the passive past:
The bridge was broken...

The second is very common and colloquial. "Last night" is an adverb (phrase) of time.

The placement of adverbs is flexible. These are also OK:
The bridge was broken last night after the storm.
Last night the bridge was broken after the storm.
The bridge was broken after the storm we had last night.

AnonymousDo you advise me to put "at" between them?
The bridge has broken after the storm at last night.

No, never!

Mister Micawber · Answer

You cannot put 'at' there. Bridges 'collapse', and simple past is called for: The bridge collapsed after last night's storm / after the storm last night. There is nothing else wrong with #1 or #2. In #2, 'last night' might be a verbless clause: 'after the storm [that occurred] last night'.

Avangi · Answer

They're both fine.

The second would be the choice in casual conversation. The possessive, and the double-s make #1 a bit of work.

The time factor is interesting. "After the storm" seems to suggest that one event followed the other rather closely.
In the first example, the "has" seems to take command, suggesting that the storm is the cause, but that the breaking has taken place recently.
"Last night" in both cases suggests that the storm subsided long ago.

(This is my personal impression.)

Anonymous · Answer

Thank everyone for the valueable advice.

After reading all the replies, some ideas came into my mind.

1. The bridge collapsed after the storm last night.

(This sentence seems that all events, both the collapse and the storm, happened last night. During the night, the storm happened first and the collapse ensued. This is because the "last night" modifies the whole sentence.)

2. The bridge has collapsed after last night's storm.

(This sentence seems that the bridged has collapsed after a specific point in the past. And, the collapse is still affecting us now.)

What do you say?

Your comments have helped me a lot. Thank you.

Mister Micawber · Answer

To #1, I say 'No'. If the bridge collapsed last night, to be clear you would write 'The bridge collapsed last night after the storm'. #1 does not make clear when the bridge collapsed, though we presume it followed fast on the storm.

To #2, I say no, as the collapse remains an event of the past, thrown there by its proximity to the storm in the text. the sentence sounds odd. Only in a moment of sudden realization would it sound reasonable: 'The bridge has collapsed! Run!" or 'The bridge has collapsed, so I can't get to work'.

Anonymous · Answer

Mister MicawberIn #2, 'last night' might be a verbless clause: 'after the storm [that occurred] last night'.

Thank you.

A verbless clause is quite a new thing to me. Nonetheless, I agree with you after second thought because the "last night" is an adverb to the storm and there cannot be any preposition in front of it.

You are great.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Hi,
I just want to toss in my 2 cents on the sentences.

Anonymous1. The bridge has broken after last night's storm.
2. The bridge has broken after the storm last night.

To be grammatically correct, the bridge couldn't have damaged itself, so " has broken " is technically wrong, and " after the storm..." seems odd; either " during or By the sotrm" would make better sense.

"Broken" is kind of an usual word to describe the condition of a bridge. I would say " the bridge has been damaged by the storm last night ( or by last night's storm)". A present perfect construction will convey the message that the "damage" is current.

Avangi · Answer

dimsumexpressI would say " the bridge has been damaged by the storm last night

I have trouble with this version. To my ear, there's a serious time conflict (which would be relieved somewhat by your alternate version).
The present perfect indicates that the act was committed in the very recent past.
"Last night" seems relatively remote in time, implying that it's now morning (the present).
Further, "by the storm" would be taken to indicate that the storm is the actor in this passive structure. "Last night" could be taken either as adjectival or adverbial, modifying "storm" or "damaged" or both. Either way, the damage occurred during the storm, making the present perfect inappropriate.

In the OP, "the bridge has broken after" leaves open the period of time between the storm and the breaking. That is, the storm may have weakened the bridge, leading to its ultimate collapse.

Dimsumexpress · Answer

Hi Avangi,
Thank you for your comments. I am just thinking out loud, so pardon me if I have repeated myself.

Each version of the sentence is our way of interpretating the incident . Actually, I wrote mine from the "news" persepctive as reported by the anchor of the news cast. I am willing to wager a beer to say that it would be unlikely to hear a news anchor use the phrase " a broken bridge ". When precisely the bridge was damaged wasn't the critical point of the sentence, the key point was, the bridge's structural intergrity has been compromised, which was described as "broken".

AvangiIn the OP, "the bridge has broken after" leaves open the period of time between the storm and the breaking. That is, the storm may have weakened the bridge, leading to its ultimate collapse.

True! It is interesting that you referred the bridge as "collapsed " which is way beyond the level of "damaged". " Broken" or "damaged " suggest it is repairable. Collapsed -as the Empire State Building, makes it impossible.

The perception I had with the sentence in the OP was, when we say something is " broken", it'd be taken as inoperable or out of order. i.e. my lawn mower is broken, meaning I can't cut grass with it. As I said earlier,the 2 past participles, "damaged" and " broken ", given the similar connotation, are not exactly equal in precise descriptive terms. To me, when the context involves building and structures, " damaged " is a more appropriate word than " broken".

I still believe present perfect is the appropriate tense for describing the physical being of the bridge.
" The bridge has been damaged by the storm..." is the fact up to the time of the report.

If one doesn't like using passive voice, of course there is always the active voice opition: " the bridge has suffered serious damage during the storm last night".

Maybe I am taking too fine a comb to this sentence. But that's how I would approach it.

Last night

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions