Sank or sunk

By the way, it's my impression that dictionaries have been adding words and definitions of existing words just about annually.

I take it that is because the usage and meaning of words evolve and change.

Not because Daniel Webster just forgot to add them in the first place and they are playing ketchup.

 

BlondeBomber,

Thanks for your demonstration of the ability to use Lexis-Nexis and giving me examples of how the phrase was used in print.

Now please provide something that shows it is grammatically correct. Appearing in print does not make it so. [That's for you, Buck]. Grammatically incorrect phrases seep into our work all the time: "Brett Favre was intercepted four times" is one commonly-used example that comes to mind.

And I never made a bad-ass edict. I answered the original question in this post by saying "When in doubt, use 'made.' It's more grammatically correct, anyway."

It was just an answer to a question that might help someone when writing a golf story in the future. You're struggling with whether to use sank or sunk, then you think "Hey, I can use 'made' instead. It's more grammatically correct, anyway."

 

Yeah, but what if you're on a shipping beat?

 

I guess you're sunk.

 

I set 'em up, you knock 'em down. Hell of a thing.

 

fishwrapper,

Yes, I could see that your aforementioned definition came directly from Merriam-Webster. I was pointing out that what you posted was an incomplete definition. Maybe I'm wrong, but for some reason, whenever I click on this link http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/set I see a lot of definitions that weren't included in the aforementioned definition of "set" that was taken directly from Merriam-Webster.

 

Dude, I'm not struggling with sink or sunk. I'm struggling to understand how someone with such limited vision would have the temerity to lay down such a stupid rule. You say you're trying to help someone write a golf story? I'd rather learn from great writers than silly rulemakers.

The word lonely didn't exist the first time Shakespeare used it. Had you been his editor, I'm sure you would have corrected him.

A putt, as a noun, isn't merely the striking of the ball. It's the entire sequence until the ball comes to a stop. I think as I proved above, many great writers would agree a golfer can sink a putt (I can't believe I'm even arguing this). Similarly, a pass isn't just the act of the ball leaving a quarterback's hand. A pass can be completed. A putt can be sank.

But I'm not going to argue with you anymore. If it makes you feel better that you won this argument, fine. I have Deford, Lebatard, Plaschke, Shaw, Telander, Fennelly, Verdi, Vaccaro, Whicker, Shipnuck and Mell on my side -- and probably any other writer of substance I might check had I not gotten bored. I can live with that.

Keep doing what you do.

 

You make a great straight man, Mighty.

By the way, judging from this thread, I am beginning to wonder whether LazyReporter is in fact a) lazy or b) a reporter.

 

That's what the ladiest keep telling me.

 

sank, although I generally like made, or rolled in if its a long one.