On 05-Feb-2009 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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?"
In this particular case, I say that the use of 'use' in any form is
simply redundant and bothersomely cumbersome. We already have a past
tense 'did' here, so why not just say:
Why did www.openbsd.org run on Solaris?
I think this is cleaner, snappier, and better overall.
Aaron W. Hsu <arcfide@xxxxxxxxxxx> | <http://www.sacrideo.us>
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat
+++++++++++++++ ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) ++++++++++++++