3 ms·

Interesting article, but I'm perplexed by the original headline on the New York Times. The double past tense is grammatically incorrect, and yet it is repeated

by prmph 5mo ago

Interesting article, but I'm perplexed by the original headline on the New York Times. The double past tense is grammatically incorrect, and yet it is repeated in the first paragraph. I see this grammar a lot now, and it always bothers me. Is it accepted usage now?

manfromchina1 5mo ago
Even ChatGPT does that.
robthebrew 5mo ago
It is ugly. "I didn't used to care" versus almost everything, including the "I used to not care"
tardedmeme 5mo ago
"didn't used to" is idiomatic English even though it makes no sense in terms of its component parts.
- prmph 5mo ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "idiomatic", but it is certainly not valid grammar, even though it is more common now. It is a beginner mistake people carry over from other languages. I agree English is not consistent, but the usage rules are specific. Can you provide a reference from an authority on the English Language, if you meant it is valid grammar?
  - tardedmeme 5mo ago
    My source is that I'm a native English speaker from an English speaking country and me and everyone around me have used this phrase since childhood. ("me and ... have ..." is another thing that upsets language purists)
    - prmph 5mo ago
      Sure, and I can also make up my own rules as I go along. After all language evolves, right? /s I didn't purged... I don't had any money... See how silly they sound? The whole point of language is to have rules to facilitate understanding.
  - 1659447091 5mo ago
    I found this post late after the NYT changed the title and the HN title is "didn't use to", so was confused on what the problem was because I figured the post you replied to simply misspelled "didn't used to". Anyway, was curious myself and found this [0] which looking through comments mentions what I thought the problem was, spelling. Others say it's intended. But then this one [1] has far more discussion on the topic and a comment under the question (from `a retired English grammarian`) "How you want to spell /'dɪdən yustə/ is what causes all the problems. "[1]. "didn't used to" simply doesn't look right to me (I can't recall ever having come across it), but the /'dɪdən yustə/ explanation is the simplest way to make sense of correctness. Another interesting discussion[2] (this seems to be a popular topic) has a few ESL teachers that say they teach "didn't use to" and taught "didn't used to" as being wrong and were surprised to find that "didn't used to" is quite common with usage being correct depending on which rules a person chooses to acknowledge. There are apparently rules that make "didn't used to" correct and they are talked about in the others, but more so in this one. [0] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/385006/didnt-used-to-or-didnt-use-to https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/385006/didnt-use... [1] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8816/whats-the-negation-of-i-used-to-be-surely-not-i-didnt-used-to-be https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8816/whats-the-n... [2] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2756 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2756
prmph 5mo ago
Update to my own comment: They have corrected it now. So, shockingly, it was an actual error, that no copy editor or proof-reader noticed?

by prmph 5mo ago

manfromchina1 5mo ago

Even ChatGPT does that.

robthebrew 5mo ago

It is ugly. "I didn't used to care" versus almost everything, including the "I used to not care"

tardedmeme 5mo ago

"didn't used to" is idiomatic English even though it makes no sense in terms of its component parts.

prmph 5mo ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "idiomatic", but it is certainly not valid grammar, even though it is more common now. It is a beginner mistake people carry over from other languages. I agree English is not consistent, but the usage rules are specific. Can you provide a reference from an authority on the English Language, if you meant it is valid grammar?
- tardedmeme 5mo ago
  My source is that I'm a native English speaker from an English speaking country and me and everyone around me have used this phrase since childhood. ("me and ... have ..." is another thing that upsets language purists)
  - prmph 5mo ago
    Sure, and I can also make up my own rules as I go along. After all language evolves, right? /s I didn't purged... I don't had any money... See how silly they sound? The whole point of language is to have rules to facilitate understanding.
- 1659447091 5mo ago
  I found this post late after the NYT changed the title and the HN title is "didn't use to", so was confused on what the problem was because I figured the post you replied to simply misspelled "didn't used to". Anyway, was curious myself and found this [0] which looking through comments mentions what I thought the problem was, spelling. Others say it's intended. But then this one [1] has far more discussion on the topic and a comment under the question (from `a retired English grammarian`) "How you want to spell /'dɪdən yustə/ is what causes all the problems. "[1]. "didn't used to" simply doesn't look right to me (I can't recall ever having come across it), but the /'dɪdən yustə/ explanation is the simplest way to make sense of correctness. Another interesting discussion[2] (this seems to be a popular topic) has a few ESL teachers that say they teach "didn't use to" and taught "didn't used to" as being wrong and were surprised to find that "didn't used to" is quite common with usage being correct depending on which rules a person chooses to acknowledge. There are apparently rules that make "didn't used to" correct and they are talked about in the others, but more so in this one. [0] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/385006/didnt-used-to-or-didnt-use-to https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/385006/didnt-use... [1] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8816/whats-the-negation-of-i-used-to-be-surely-not-i-didnt-used-to-be https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8816/whats-the-n... [2] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2756 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2756

prmph 5mo ago

Update to my own comment: They have corrected it now. So, shockingly, it was an actual error, that no copy editor or proof-reader noticed?