I was gonna say, it's also weird because the text of the article seems nearly-native quality.. but actually when I went back and looked more closely it's semi-broken English as well. I guess it's in big wordy paragraphs that you skim and don't notice the grammar of.
Like the examples they give include:
> "What this is made from?"
> "Who you have come to see?"
> "I asked him where does he work."
> "I wonder where is he."
They all sound strange to me but are apparently common in some Englishes.
There were many other giveaways in the article that you'd never see in everyday American English usage:
"Oh yes, it happened!" (who says that)
"giant Online American Vacation Rental Business" (...it's just a vacation rental website)
"the, excessive use, of commas, everywhere"
"Sam enjoys the paper" is fine.
"Sam enjoys the paper?" sounds weird, like you're questioning the sentence itself rather than asking Sam if they enjoyed the paper.
"DOES Sam enjoy the paper?" adds an auxiliary (does) and makes it more natural sounding, I guess, to our ears.
"Sam enjoys the paper?" could have emphasis on "Sam" and sound fine - it is asking if it is Sam or someone else who enjoys the paper.
"Sam enjoys the paper?" could have emphasis on "enjoys" and sounds fine - it is asking if Sam enjoys the paper or feels some other way.
"Sam enjoys the paper?" could have emphasis on "paper" and sounds fine - it is asking if Sam enjoys the paper or something else.
And "Does Sam enjoy the paper?" sounds fine too - it is asking a more specific yes/no question.
Otherwise, it's just easier/clearer to phrase it like "Who was enjoying the paper?" or "How does Sam feel about the paper?" or "What does Sam like to read?"
But those constructions don't necessarily apply to other regional variants of English (especially if English is a second language for them). In that case they may be adapting their English grammar to be closer to the syntax of another language they speak.
Several of us here, including myself, are guessing that the blog author may be Indian (I'm not sure, it's just a guess). If so, there are papers studying this phenomenon or something close to it (I'm not really sure... I'm interested in languages, but I'm not at all a linguist and this is way over my head...). I'll quote (emphasis added) one paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265785678_Embedded_...
> The corpus study reported here challenges a conventional assumption in the World Englishes literature concerning the grammar of L2 English in India: that auxiliary inversion with wh -movement (henceforth wh -inversion) is exactly the opposite of standard U.S. and U.K. English, being impossible in main clauses yet obligatory in embedded clauses (Bhatt, 2000 ; Mesthrie & Bhatt, 2008 ; Trudgill & Hannah, 2008 ). 2 If the prevailing account were valid, this language variety would constitute a rogue grammar in the sense of Thomas ( 1991 ). However, the results suggest that, in this respect, the grammars of L2 users of English in mul-tilingual societies, just like those of monolingual speakers of standard varieties, fall within the compass of Universal Grammar (UG).
In other words... what you're saying makes perfect sense to me and presumably other speakers of some broad "American English" because we're used to those formulations. English elsewhere in the world, possibly including wherever the blog author came from, does not necessarily follow the same rules all the time, especially if English is just one of a matrix of languages they use throughout a week, mixing and matching languages and grammars according to who and what they need to communicate.
As an aside... if stuff like this interests you, the movie Arrival might be interesting? It's that rare pop-sci movie that tries to actually deal with alien linguistics instead of hand-waving it away with a universal translator/babelfish.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dump
"He dumped his clothes on the bed. She dumped the contents of her purse on the table. I dumped the old coffee down the drain."
Correct: He dumped his clothes on the bed.
Incorrect: Why he dumped his clothes on the bed?
Correct: Why did he dump his clothes on the bed?
It's a widely-used living language, and one without a central authority (language regulator, unlike many other languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_language_regulators)
So English just kinda grows and grows haphazardly. There are more people in India who speak English (Wikipedia estimates 30% of 1.38 billion, which is 400 million) than there are Americans or UK residents. IMO their particular usage isn't any more or less correct, any more than American English is more or less correct than British English.
It's not a matter of being politically correct or anti-racist or whatever, just the observation that English has always been a hodgepodge of regionalisms and will continue to be for the foreseeable future, and by speakers/population alone, probably the American and British varieties will continue to shrink as other Englishes take over. Probably it's us Westerners that will need to adopt to the new Englishes rather than the other way around.
Grammar prescriptivists and grade school teachers might disagree, but well, they are overwhelmingly in the minority already and will become increasingly more so.
Seeing "Why he dumped his clothes on the bed?" you can guess that they MEANT to say was "Why did he dump his clothes on the bed?"
But there's a bit of uncertainty there, was that really what they meant to say? Or did they mean to say something like "Why did he dump his clothes on the bed IS MY QUESTION" but somehow the rest of the sentence got lost.
Syntactically correct sentences have typically a much more precise semantics than syntactically incorrect ones. One could argue that incorrect syntax means the meaning is anybody's guess.
Point is when we read or hear language we must interpret it by assuming what we think the speaker wants to say. But if syntax is incorrect that becomes much more difficult. Therefor correct syntax is a god-send for getting your point across.
Think about the way browsers interpret HTML. They allow you to deviate from the standard somewhat. But that causes different browsers to produce different visible output. Not a good thing. Maybe the coder thinks they are getting their point across, but depending on the audience, what browser they are using, the "point" can get lost. Best bet is to use standard syntax.
Each English-speaking region comes up with their own rules, perhaps initially descended from a group of British or American emigrants, but evolving over time to form their own variants. It happened from the slave trade, it happened from the age of sail, it happened in Hawaii, in the American South, in the American West, in the Philippines, in India, in South Africa... they all speak subtly different variants, with different rules.
There is no universally correct use of English. There are various rules documented in various dictionaries and grammar/style guides, and reinforced by teachers and higher-class people of various societies, but those are descriptive, after-the-fact illustrations that follow the evolving language, not the other way around.
It's one thing to say that a child's usage of language is incorrect because they haven't learned it yet, within a certain cultural context. It's another thing entirely to presume that your region's usage of English is the only "correct" one. There's no such thing.
Examples (American vs British):
"Data is" vs "data are"
"Do you have a car?" vs "Have you got a car?"
"I already saw that film" vs "I've already seen that film" etc.
color vs colour, trunk vs boot, etc. more examples here: https://www.thoughtco.com/differences-between-american-and-b...
For the blog title in question (which isn't an American vs British difference, to be clear, but possibly an Indian English construction -- not sure), the sentence is perfectly clear, with or without the "did". There isn't some weird ambiguity about it, especially in the context of a tech blog. I agree that it sounds strange to American/British ears, but it's not really "incorrect", it's just a regional stylistic difference -- or so we surmise. Give it 50 years' worth of population growth and migrations, and that construction might very well become the more common one, leaving the American and British versions sounding quaint and foreign.
Now, maybe a related question is whether the writer should've written in the American style, kinda like how many foreign English singers will emulate an American accent. In that case it's not a question of correctness anymore, but of adapting your communications for a cross-cultural context and targeting a specific group of English users and their traditions. I'm not arguing that the author should or should not have done that, just that their choice wasn't "incorrect". Just different from what we're used to.
Problem is if it's not clear (to your audience) which language you are using. I'm not saying that is what happened here. I'm concerned about the general principle "it does not matter really". Yes it doesn't, so much that we should nitpick about it. But it does in giving us guidance as to what we should strive towards. If the audience is international it is best to not use use a specific dialect from a specific region of the world.
It's not "incorrect" or "correct". The question is would it be easier to transfer the information you are trying to transfer by using the most common, most shared dialect of English.
It maybe used to be the case that the internet was primarily American English, but that can't be assumed anymore.
When a British person writes "colour", it looks wrong to me but it's not my place to "correct" them. That would be rude, dumb, arrogant, and ignorant all at once. "Two countries divided by a common language", so they say, except now there are far more than two. Blame colonialism, I guess?
As for the blog audience, maybe they were targeting an international viewership, or even a primarily Indian one (their immigrant tech peers)? In that case, it would be weird to speak American instead of their native English. Like whatever the Indian version of an Uncle Tom would be.
In this case I think this construction is both common enough and clear enough that maybe it's the Americans who should get used to it, rather than demanding that a country five times bigger change their habits to meet our preferences...