Sink, Sank, Sunk

A LITERARY CRISIS of incalculably dire dimensions is ravaging america's book reading community, what there is of it, or a very small part of it, such as it is. It has to do with the use of the word "sink", and its past tense "sank", and its past participle "sunk".

It all started when one of the highly entertaining and intriguing novels by John Grisham. He appeared to misuse the word, using the past participle when the simple past tense was called for. "the boat sunk to the bottom of the lake".

Then it happend again, same author. Never did he use the word "sank", but always, "sunk". Confused at first, I eventually chalked it up to grisham's arkansas origins, and his mississippi residence.

But that explanation seemed condescending, indaquate, unreasonable. Grisham has a college education, a law degree, and is of course a very successful and popular contemporary writer. He would never do this. Could it be that I was missing something?

IT DIDN'T STOP THERE. Next, Ernest Hemingway appeared to do the exact same thing; he used the word "sunk" in a situation which seemed, at least to me, to clearly call for the word "sank". I now forget which novel contains this. Its one of four: "The Old Man and The Sea", "The Sun Also Rises", "A farewell to Arms", or "For Whom the Bell Tolls".

Its one of those, and maybe all of them. The word "sunk" in place of what should be the word "sank" "the rock sunk to the bottom", something like that. The same mistake, everytime.

Next came Charles Dickens. He does the same thing in his classic "Oliver Twist". I cannot cite page and paragraph, but its there, like some verbal demon, tormenting me. But it wasn't over yet. For the same mightmare seems to occur in Upton Sinclair's  "The Jungle". Sunk, instead of sank. In chapter Two, fourteenth paragraph, third sentence, Sinclair says "it sunk into your consciousness". Shouldn't he have said "it sank into your consciousness"?

Furious and frustrated, I , having read all these books, went back and tried to find the specific examples of what I am talking about. But of course, like a UFO, it wasn't there, or couldn't be seen, on second search; except for the sinclair example. But the others do exist, and are of the same ilk. How can these writers not see this, or not care?

but its there, all right, in each of the authors named above, its there, the incorrect congugation of the elementary work "sink". But why? Can it be that I am hallucinating? NO! Never! I know what I saw. They were there, hovering above me, in the sky, on the page, these bright, hideous, misplaced literary objects, tormenting me, laughing at me.... 

And they must surely still be there, and others have surely seen them. Somewhere, somehow. Which leads to an even more terrible thought: how many more are there, and by whom? How many of our most cherished writers have fallen victim to this insidious disease of seventh grade grammar?

If only I had had a camera with me, or even a notepad. But each time it happened, I assumed it was a stray, an anomaly, and would be the last. My greatest fear is that it will happen again..and again..and will haunt me forever, in every book I read. What if people start talking like that? If that ever happens, the joy of rreading and writing will for me be forever sank.