Highly Selected Examples

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon May 03, 2004 5:34 pm

In all, I'd have to say (sadly, considering the hours and hours of desperate effort that must have gone into this...discussion?) that it has been a colossal waste of time.

Larry Latham

Ed · Post by Ed » Mon May 03, 2004 5:36 pm

Shun,

"The danger of google hits" referred to how unreliable this type of search can be. If you just put three words together (had used to), you may find texts --like those you quoted-- where the three words are together but not in the sense you were looking for. If you are not careful, you can assume the sentences are examples of a certain structure when they are not. That is all.

I'm afraid you misunderstand what some of us say and jump to conclusions too quickly. Too bad...

I'll be back after lunch.

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Mon May 03, 2004 6:34 pm

[quote="Ed talked about "Had Used To" and "]Shun,
"The danger of google hits" referred to how unreliable this type of search can be.......
"If you are not careful, you can assume the sentences are examples of a certain structure when they are not. [/quote]
But I was careful, unless you prove otherwise.

I took examples that exemplify the use of Had Used To, in time relation of another sentence. It is a standard use of Past Perfect:

Shun wrote: Therefore, I guess that before "had used to", there must be another Simple Past sentence happened later than it, or "had used to" is in the subordinate clause. In the very short, "had used to" is a retrospection.

I searched for "had used to" and there were many such examples at the first resulting page:

Ex: This was an adaptation of a technique that researchers Kong-Peng Lam and Klaus Rajewski had used to study lymphoid cells, but it had not been applied to cancer modeling,” said Orkin.

Ex: In Pittsburgh last month, several visiting St. John's University basketball players were cleared of a rape accusation after one team member gave investigators his cell phone, which he had used to videotape some of the encounter.

Ex: An article by Christensen and Suess published in Byte magazine described CBBS and outlined the technology they had used to develop it, sparking the creation of many tens of thousands of BBSes all over the world.
== All the "had used to" here are in the subordination, happening before its main action.

Shun Tang

The examples are therefore in good contrast with Met56's examples that do not show the use of Past Perfect:
Ex: I had used to think that the world was round.
Ex: They had used to believe in Santa.
== They are "The danger of google hits", failing to show why we use Past Perfect of used to, in time comparison with another sentence/action.

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Mon May 03, 2004 6:46 pm

LarryLatham wrote:In all, I'd have to say (sadly, considering the hours and hours of desperate effort that must have gone into this...discussion?) that it has been a colossal waste of time.

Larry Latham

Larry, it is a good and effective way to insult many contributors here in this...discussion, including yourself.

Shun

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon May 03, 2004 8:31 pm

Shuntang, your examples of had used to have one thing in common; they all mean the same as "had used for the purpose of doing something"

e.g. ...his cell phone, which he had used to videotape some of the encounter means the same as "his cell phone, which he had used for the purpose of videoing the encounter".

Likewise for your other examples. They have nothing to do with used to + Base Form for habits in the past. It's not the Past Perfect of used to, but the Past Perfect of use.

Ed · Post by Ed » Mon May 03, 2004 8:39 pm

Sorry, Shun, but you have NOT been careful. You need to read Metal's posts as well as your examples again. In fact, you have to reread all the good explanations everyone has offered. Otherwise, I regret to say it is useless to continue.

Please compare "I had used to think that the world was round" with "...his cell phone, which he had used (in order to) videotape some..."

Can you see that in the first case we are dealing with "used to" and its possible past perfect form (which most people found strange), and in the second with "use" and its normal past perfect "had used"? Look again and you will notice that the "to" in your examples is the same as "in order to". This does not apply to Metal's examples.
Hence, we are not dealing with the same structure.
Proof enough.

Ed · Post by Ed » Mon May 03, 2004 8:40 pm

Thanks, Lolwhites. Maybe Shun will trust you...

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue May 04, 2004 4:25 am

LarryLatham wrote:In all, I'd have to say (sadly, considering the hours and hours of desperate effort that must have gone into this...discussion?) that it has been a colossal waste of time.

Larry Latham

Not for me.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue May 04, 2004 4:36 am

shuntang wrote:
LarryLatham wrote:In all, I'd have to say (sadly, considering the hours and hours of desperate effort that must have gone into this...discussion?) that it has been a colossal waste of time.

Larry Latham
Larry, it is a good and effective way to insult many contributors here in this...discussion, including yourself.

Shun

Shun, do try to listen to others. Try this:

A: That is the car they had used.

B: To do what?

A: To get way after the robbery.

----------------------------

Son, speaking to sister:I had used Dad's new scewdriver, but it didn't work well. so I used the kitchenknife.

Dad, overhearing: Used Dad's screwdriver to do what, if I may ask?

--------------------------------------------
Different from the above:

A:I had used to walk by the river thinking, before they polluted it.

B:To do what?

A:To walk by the river. Are you deaf or something?

-------------------------------------------------

OK, Shun?

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:16 am

lolwhites wrote:Shuntang, your examples of had used to have one thing in common; they all mean the same as "had used for the purpose of doing something"

e.g. ...his cell phone, which he had used to videotape some of the encounter means the same as "his cell phone, which he had used for the purpose of videoing the encounter".

Likewise for your other examples. They have nothing to do with used to + Base Form for habits in the past. It's not the Past Perfect of used to, but the Past Perfect of use.

I guess you are correct and I was wrong. Your analysis is more reasonable. I didn't read your discusssion there, but it is not an excuse to be wrong.

Shun

shuntang · Post by **shuntang** » Tue May 04, 2004 7:34 am

Ed,

I now admit "The danger of google hits".

(To be fair, I was wrong, Google is neutral.)

Shun

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Wed May 05, 2004 9:32 pm

Shun Tang,

I must give you credit, here, for your last two posts. It shows you have a sense of fairness, and a willingness, sometimes, to admit you're wrong. That takes courage, and all the more so for a Chinese male. It is not common in your culture. I congratulate you for that strength!

Now, if there was just something one of us could say to you that would get you to read more carefully, and think more clearly, and with more respect generally for what some textbooks, and some thoughtful and careful native speakers have to say, I believe you would be way ahead in your ideas about the way English works. One great thing in your favor is that you so obviously do care about it. That puts you way ahead to begin with. And I'll also credit you with not accepting poor or careless arguments from others. The trouble is, you don't accept their good arguments either. And you believe too much in your own superficial thinking while rejecting the incautious ideas advanced by some of us here. You probably are not interested in advice from me, but I'll offer it anyway: Slow down a little. Think other peoples ideas through before rejecting them outright. Think your own ideas through, maybe more than once, before claiming that you have "solved" or "proved" something about English. If you do that, you will quickly become the genuine expert that you wish to be.

Larry Latham

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Wed May 05, 2004 10:55 pm

LarryLatham wrote:Shun Tang,

I must give you credit, here, for your last two posts. It shows you have a sense of fairness, and a willingness, sometimes, to admit you're wrong. That takes courage, and all the more so for a Chinese male. It is not common in your culture. I congratulate you for that strength!

Now, if there was just something one of us could say to you that would get you to read more carefully, and think more clearly, and with more respect generally for what some textbooks, and some thoughtful and careful native speakers have to say, I believe you would be way ahead in your ideas about the way English works. One great thing in your favor is that you so obviously do care about it. That puts you way ahead to begin with. And I'll also credit you with not accepting poor or careless arguments from others. The trouble is, you don't accept their good arguments either. And you believe too much in your own superficial thinking while rejecting the incautious ideas advanced by some of us here. You probably are not interested in advice from me, but I'll offer it anyway: Slow down a little. Think other peoples ideas through before rejecting them outright. Think your own ideas through, maybe more than once, before claiming that you have "solved" or "proved" something about English. If you do that, you will quickly become the genuine expert that you wish to be.

Larry Latham

Respectfully seconded.