[Grammar] is damaged/ have been damaged

[anhnha]

Hello,
I have just read this title in a newspaper: Ancient pagoda damaged in fire.
Which is correct if I rewrite into a full sentence?
1. A ancient pagoda is damaged in fire.
2. A ancient pagoda have been damaged in fire.
If there is a difference between them, please tell me.
Thanks.

 

[charliedeut]

Both are incorrect as they stand.

 

[tzfujimino]

Hello, anhnha.:-D
Please check if the article is correctly used.
It is a newspaper headline, so the present perfect is more appropriate in my opinion.

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

NOT A TEACHER

Also notice that in the second sentence you have used "have". The subject of the sentence doesn't agree with the verb, a singular noun requires a singular verb.

 

[anhnha]

Thanks for all help!
I didn't recognise these mistakes without thinking about grammar.:-D
What about if these sentences are rewrite as follow:
1. An ancient pagoda is damaged in fire.
2. An ancient pagoda has been damaged in fire.

 

[Chicken Sandwich]

NOT A TEACHER

I think that it's more natural to say, 'An ancient pagoda has been / is damaged by fire.'

 

[tzfujimino]

Thanks for all help!
I didn't recognise these mistakes without thinking about grammar.:-D
What about if these sentences are rewritten as follows:
1. An ancient pagoda is damaged in fire.
2. An ancient pagoda has been damaged in fire.

Hello, again.:-D
I'd prefer the second for the reason stated in my earlier post.
Please wait for other (native speakers') opinions.

(Edit) I'd add 'a' before 'fire' - 'in a fire'

 

[Rover_KE]

An ancient pagoda has been damaged in a fire.