6 ms·

Your English is otherwise excellent, but "used to have" implies that you had an object/thing for a period of time in the past, and don't any more. "I used to ha

Your English is otherwise excellent, but "used to have" implies that you had an object/thing for a period of time in the past, and don't any more. "I used to have a hovercraft". In this case, "had" seems more appropriate. "I had a very successful.."

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Curious as a native English speaker you parsed that sentence. It is awkward, but I did not think it is actually incorrect. Is it?
- wyldfire 5y ago
  Correctness is subjective. I didn't have trouble understanding it but it is not idiomatic.
- bckr 5y ago
  Could mean "I used to have a product that I demonstrated in a Show HN (which product I later sold)".
  - system2 5y ago
    From what I read, it means exactly that. Interesting pick.
- bencollier49 5y ago
  Well I always thought that a "Show HN" was a discrete event. So 'used to have' doesn't make sense to me unless there was something about it which was enduring. Like bckr says below, if a "Show HN" is a product class, then the statement makes sense. Obligatory net search: 'Used to is a phrase that can mean “accustomed or habituated to” or refers to something from the past that is no longer true.'
hluska 5y ago
Sorry pal, you’re not only wrong but this is an incredibly boring comment. “Used to have” is 100% correct.
- bencollier49 5y ago
  I don't read it that way at all. Just trying to be helpful as it still reads incorrectly to me.
- kube-system 5y ago
  No, they are correct about the usage. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/used%20to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/used%20to used to - verb 1—used to say a situation existed in the past but does not exist now 2—used to say something happened repeatedly in the past but does not happen now (I also find it somewhat amusing that both definitions include "used to" in them)
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    We all understood what it meant. Also people have idiolects, and there is no such a thing as an authoritative version of English.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      Of course, dictionaries simply document established usage. The existence of idiolects isn't a prohibition on discussions of diction.
      - hungryforcodes 5y ago
        Right, and also things like spelling and language change over time. As you probably are no doubt sensitive to. We should not -- and in fact cannot -- avoid this... https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item102725.html https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item102725.html
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fxtentacle 5y ago
Thanks for the correction :) I meant to say that I once had an app which was launched as Show HN, but that the app isn't mine anymore. BTW, closer to the original topic, I just had a lot of fun in the past 1-2 hour(s) twiddling around with Bomberland, the Show HN from 3 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28640804#28647120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28640804#28647120.
rvba 5y ago
The second sentence says that it was sold, so "used to have" makes sense?

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

Curious as a native English speaker you parsed that sentence. It is awkward, but I did not think it is actually incorrect. Is it?

wyldfire 5y ago
Correctness is subjective. I didn't have trouble understanding it but it is not idiomatic.
bckr 5y ago
Could mean "I used to have a product that I demonstrated in a Show HN (which product I later sold)".
- system2 5y ago
  From what I read, it means exactly that. Interesting pick.
bencollier49 5y ago
Well I always thought that a "Show HN" was a discrete event. So 'used to have' doesn't make sense to me unless there was something about it which was enduring. Like bckr says below, if a "Show HN" is a product class, then the statement makes sense. Obligatory net search: 'Used to is a phrase that can mean “accustomed or habituated to” or refers to something from the past that is no longer true.'

hluska 5y ago

Sorry pal, you’re not only wrong but this is an incredibly boring comment. “Used to have” is 100% correct.

bencollier49 5y ago
I don't read it that way at all. Just trying to be helpful as it still reads incorrectly to me.
kube-system 5y ago
No, they are correct about the usage. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/used%20to https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/used%20to used to - verb 1—used to say a situation existed in the past but does not exist now 2—used to say something happened repeatedly in the past but does not happen now (I also find it somewhat amusing that both definitions include "used to" in them)
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  We all understood what it meant. Also people have idiolects, and there is no such a thing as an authoritative version of English.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Of course, dictionaries simply document established usage. The existence of idiolects isn't a prohibition on discussions of diction.
    - hungryforcodes 5y ago
      Right, and also things like spelling and language change over time. As you probably are no doubt sensitive to. We should not -- and in fact cannot -- avoid this... https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item102725.html https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item102725.html
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fxtentacle 5y ago

Thanks for the correction :) I meant to say that I once had an app which was launched as Show HN, but that the app isn't mine anymore. BTW, closer to the original topic, I just had a lot of fun in the past 1-2 hour(s) twiddling around with Bomberland, the Show HN from 3 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28640804#28647120 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28640804#28647120.

rvba 5y ago

The second sentence says that it was sold, so "used to have" makes sense?