Sank vs Sunk

Sink
Sank
Has sunk

The ship sank off the coast of Charleston in 1784.

Thanks, GG!

...and I asked this question because my dictionaries say that sunk can be used as the past tense of sink.

Would native ears cringe if they heard something like this:

What sunk the boat?

Thanks,

Tom

Sure enough - either sank or sunk can be the simple past.

The way I was taught:

Because of rough weather, the ship sank.

As a result of the tsunami, many of the boats in the harbor have sunk. (Or, WERE sunk.)

The rescuers were able to recover much of the cargo from the sunken ship.

-- Typeaux

Not to argue which is 'right' but to observe that the -ink/-ank/-unk paradigm is in serious trouble. Remember the movie 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids?'. The title grated on me, but I don't recall a hue and cry over this grammatical faux pas. Today on NPR I heard an interview where both host and guest said something like 'This debris sunk below the surface'. There's a drift toward regularization of ver

robinsjoRemember the movie 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids?'. The title grated on me, but I don't recall a hue and cry over this grammatical faux pas.

It's not a new phenomenon. Shrunk as a past tense form has been in American dictionaries for decades. Perhaps even longer, I don't know. That doesn't mean that every American uses it. People usually frown upo

AnonymousThe way I was taught

The way I teach:

Group 1. i - a - u [5]

begin began begun
swim swam swum
sing sang sung
ring rang rung
drink drank drunk

Group 2. i - a - u OR i - u - u [4]

This is an intermediate group between 1 and 3. These verbs can belong