Stank vs. Stunk
“Stank” is the usual simple past of “stink”; “stunk” is the past participle and is also recorded as a simple-past variant in US and Australian English. The guide preserves documented regional or alternate forms rather than treating the pair as an absolute binary.
“Stank” is the usual simple past of “stink”; “stunk” is the past participle and is also recorded as a simple-past variant in US and Australian English.
Key details
Choose the right form
| Sentence need | Use | Example |
|---|---|---|
| simple past | stank | “Stank” is the broadly used simple-past form; Cambridge also records simple-past “stunk” in US and Australian English. |
| past participle after have/has/had | stunk | The sentence uses stunk after an auxiliary. |
Usage notes
The contrast is not absolute: Cambridge records “stunk” as an additional simple-past form in US and Australian English.
Further guidance
Core difference
“Stank” is the usual simple-past form of “stink.” “Stunk” is the past participle, while Cambridge also records “stunk” as a simple-past form in US and Australian English.
Fast Test
For a neutral simple-past sentence, “stank” is the broadly useful choice. After have/has/had, use “stunk.” In US and Australian English, simple-past “stunk” is also documented.
Sources and evidence
Sources are shown with the role they play in this guide. Historical or style-sensitive claims are kept within the evidence boundary described above.
- Stink — Cambridge Dictionary (opens in a new tab)Cambridge University Press · Direct verb-form evidence for stink, stank/stunk, stunk, including the recorded US/Australian simple-past stunk variant.