Rich People Didn't Use to Look Like This(nytimes.com) |
Rich People Didn't Use to Look Like This(nytimes.com) |
What does it mean for something to be excessive? At first glance, the article seems to argue that denying aging itself is unnatural. Personally, I think aging is a state that should eventually be overcome.
But the real issue lies elsewhere.
The article’s central criticism is that the human face is becoming a class display device. The definition of a “rich face” is essentially the ability to redesign natural limits with money. A face into which surgery and capital have visibly been poured becomes the face of wealth.
The article argues that this virtue of excess is becoming monopolized by the rich. After reading it, I looked at my own face: the face of a $15-an-hour Upwork developer. It was a face worn down by fatigue.
At that moment, a strange thought came to me.
Excess and poverty look like opposites, but both erase the human being from the face.
The rich face loses the traces of life because it has been altered too much. The poor worker’s face loses the leisure of life because it has been consumed too much. One is a face into which too much money has been poured; the other is a face worn down because too little money remained.
In the end, the problem is not the desire to look young itself. The problem begins when the face is no longer the surface of a person’s life, emotions, and time, but instead becomes something read like a receipt of class.
The rich lose their faces through excess. The poor lose their faces through exhaustion.
And somewhere between the two, the human face gradually disappears.
I see this grammar a lot now, and it always bothers me. Is it accepted usage 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?
They have corrected it now. So, shockingly, it was an actual error, that no copy editor or proof-reader noticed?
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-use...
[1] https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/8816/whats-the-n...
("me and ... have ..." is another thing that upsets language purists)
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.