[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: www
- To: source-changes_(_at_)_cvs_(_dot_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: CVS: cvs.openbsd.org: www
- From: Hannah Schroeter <hannah_(_at_)_schlund_(_dot_)_de>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:44:21 +0100
- Organization: Schlund + Partner AG
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 02:34:47PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>On 2009/02/05 14:06, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:37:35AM -0700, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> >CVSROOT: /cvs
>> >Module name: www
>> >Changes by: sthen_(_at_)_cvs_(_dot_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org 2009/02/05 04:37:35
>> >Modified files:
>> > faq : faq8.html
>> >Log message:
>> >"why does...run on Solaris" -> "why did...used to run on Solaris" in the
>> >section index, as was already done in the section header and index.html.
>> Shouldn't it be "did ... use" without double use of past tense?
>> See e.g. the example in http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/use
>> "intransitive verb 1 [...] <didn't use to smoke>".
>The "didn't use to smoke" example they give doesn't seem correct
>to me (as a native UK english speaker).
Ok, I'm not a native speaker, but then, I've seen native speakers write
things that *are* definitely not correct (e.g. "it's" for "of it"
instead of "its", one of my pet peeves).
For other verbs, double past tense is definitely wrong. One doesn't say
"didn't went", but "didn't go", for example. So "didn't used" (or "did
used" in cases where one splits past tenses without negation) sounds
wrong to me, and m-w reinforces my feeling.
Another online dictionary supports my view, too:
"use to In negative sentences and questions, 'use to' replaces 'used to'
when it follows 'did' or 'didn't'"
Double past form is referred to as "non-standard":
"NOT STANDARD He did used to work there, didn't he?"