# Did you used to go there?



## eduardo.vlds

Hi All, 

I have a question... When using the verb "used to..." ... is it correct to still using the past form as in:

Did you used to go to that place???

Thanks all,

Ed


----------



## boludo13

Yes, that is correct.


----------



## ccesarjj

Strictly speaking, I'm afraid that is not correct. Despite the fact that some people do use it that way. You cannot have both and auxiliary and an -ed marker in the same phrase.

_"Did you use to go to that place? _" would be better.

Something similar happens with features such as negative markers; e.g. _"I can't get no satisfaction_" Despite its popularity, this phrase is not grammatically correct.


----------



## Peterdg

Agree with ccesarjj: Did you use to ....


----------



## boludo13

ccesarjj said:


> Strictly speaking, I'm afraid that is not correct. Despite the fact that some people do use it that way. You cannot have both and auxiliary and an -ed marker in the same phrase.
> 
> _"Did you use to go to that place? _" would be better.
> 
> Something similar happens with features such as negative markers; e.g. _"I can't get no satisfaction_" Despite its popularity, this phrase is not grammatically correct.



I must disagree. "Use to" is not correct, although it may sound that speakers say "use to", the correct form is "used to".


----------



## nordico

It´s said "Did you use to go there?"
Suerte


----------



## Peterdg

boludo13 said:


> I must disagree. "Use to" is not correct, although it may sound that speakers say "use to", the correct form is "used to".


 *Grammar A.J.Thompson and A.V.Martinet*:

"*didn't use (to)?*,* did you use (to)?*,* didn't you use (to)?* are fairly common but you must avoid *didn't used (to)* which is also heard but is considered incorrect.


----------



## ccesarjj

Hi,



boludo13 said:


> I must disagree. "Use to" is not correct, although it may sound that speakers say "use to", the correct form is "used to".



You're right, when the sentences we're dealing with are affirmative statements:

_He is used to playing tennis on weekends
He used to sleep all day long _

But, I would say that's not the case with questions where auxiliary did is involved:

_Was he used to playing tennis on weekends?_

but

_Did he use to sleep all day long?_

I think reference to any standard grammar book on the topic of past tenses can settle the issue properly.

Regards,
CC


----------



## neal41

This is a dialect question.  In the United States in Southern dialects like mine there are a number of modal verb constructions that are routinely used which are not used in Northern dialects.  If often say that Northern dialects have an impoverished repertoire of modal verbs.

I used to do that every day.
I didn't used to do that.

I might could see you today if you come early.

I used to could do that but not anymore.
I didn't used to could do that but now I can.


----------



## neal41

'Use' is a normal verb and is conjugated like any other verb.  'Used to' behaves more like a modal verb (could, might, may, etc.)  Sidney Greenbaum (_Oxford English Grammar_) calls it a marginal modal and points out that it does not a present tense form whereas the modal 'must' and the marginal modals 'need' and 'ought to' do not have past tense forms.


----------



## eduardo.vlds

Neal 41... I totally agree with your last answer: "used to" is a modal verb. That's why it's correct to ask:

*DID YOU USED TO* DO THAT EVERY DAY???

Even though It's not gramatically correct to use the auxiliar "did" with a past form when asking... the forms: Did you used to..., did he used to..., did I used to... etc...

*ARE GRAMATICALLY CORRECT AS "USED TO" IS CONSIDERED A MODAL VERB.*


----------



## bilingualt

eduardo.vlds said:


> Neal 41... I totally agree with your last answer: "used to" is a modal verb. That's why it's correct to ask:
> 
> *DID YOU USED TO* DO THAT EVERY DAY???
> 
> Even though It's not gramatically correct to use the auxiliar "did" with a past form when asking... the forms: Did you used to..., did he used to..., did I used to... etc...
> 
> *ARE GRAMATICALLY CORRECT AS "USED TO" IS CONSIDERED A MODAL VERB.*


 
Eduardo, I'm sorry to say this, but you're wrong. When using *used to* in an interrogative or a negative sentence, the *d  *is dropped.


----------



## FromPA

neal41 said:


> This is a dialect question. In the United States in Southern dialects like mine there are a number of modal verb constructions that are routinely used which are not used in Northern dialects. If often say that Northern dialects have an impoverished repertoire of modal verbs.
> 
> I used to do that every day.
> I didn't used to do that.
> 
> I might could see you today if you come early.
> 
> I used to could do that but not anymore.
> I didn't used to could do that but now I can.


 
I would need a translator if visiting your area.


----------



## Emma Neve

Hi everybody! 

English Grammar in Use; Raymond Murphy, Cambridge University Press.

I quote from the book mentioned above, Unit 18:
The normal question form is: did (you) *use* to ... ?
Example:  Did you *use* to eat a lot of sweets when you were a child?

Emma


----------



## ribran

Peterdg said:


> *Grammar A.J.Thompson and A.V.Martinet*:
> 
> "*didn't use (to)?*,* did you use (to)?*,* didn't you use (to)?* are fairly common but you must avoid *didn't used (to)* which is also heard but is considered incorrect.



_Didn't used to_ and _didn't use to_ sound exactly the same to me. Do they sound different in any accent?


----------



## Peterdg

ribran said:


> _Didn't used to_ and _didn't use to_ sound exactly the same to me. Do they sound different in any accent?


You may not hear it, but you see it when it's written

(And it hurts)


----------



## ribran

neal41 said:


> This is a dialect question.  In the United States in Southern dialects like mine there are a number of modal verb constructions that are routinely used which are not used in Northern dialects.  If often say that Northern dialects have an impoverished repertoire of modal verbs.
> 
> I used to do that every day.
> I didn't used to do that.
> 
> I might could see you today if you come early.
> 
> I used to could do that but not anymore.
> I didn't used to could do that but now I can.



Neal, did you grow up in Houston? I am from Austin, which, as you know, is about 170 miles from Houston, and I don't know anyone here who uses _might could_. I'm familiar with it because my grandparents, both Mississippians, used it all the time, but it's never been part of my active vocabulary.


----------



## ribran

Peterdg said:


> You may not hear it, but you see it when it's written
> 
> (And it hurts)



The reason people write _didn't used to_ is that it sounds identical to _didn't use to_. I've seen several people write things such as, "Well, _didn't used to_ is used in speech...," but I have no idea how they know that.


----------



## mirx

ribran said:


> Neal, did you grow up in Houston? I am from Austin, which, as you know, is about 170 miles from Austin, and I don't know anyone here who uses *might could*. I'm familiar with it because my grandparents, both Mississippians, used it all the time, but it's never been part of my active vocabulary.


Sorry to hijack the post, but what does it exactly mean?
Is it any different to "I might see you" or "I could see you"?


----------



## el_ochito

Mirx, your question is easier than the OP, so it won't hijack it much. This context of "Used to" indicates a habitual activity: I used to go out every Friday means that it was habitual or usual in me to go out every Friday (but it is not usual now).

This is not to be confused with the phrase "to be used to", which is similar in meaning but works separately, indicating that you are habituated to a situation, for example. I'm used to hearing gunfire at night. It doesn't surprise me anymore.


----------



## mirx

el_ochito said:


> Mirx, your question is easier than the OP, so it won't hijack it much. "Used to" indicates a habitual activity: I used to go out every Friday means that it was habitual or usual in me to go out every Friday.



Sorry  Ochito, I am referring to _*might could. 

*_But thanks for the refresher, it is always very much appreciated.


----------



## Peterdg

ribran said:


> _Didn't used to_ and _didn't use to_ sound exactly the same to me. Do they sound different in any accent?





ribran said:


> The reason people write _didn't used to_ is that it sounds identical to _didn't use to_. I've seen several people write things such as, "_Well, didn't used to is used in speech, but it's incorrect," but I have no idea how they know that._


_I'm sorry Ribran, but this is no agrument.

When I say: "I know that too", I write "too" and not "to", although they sound exactly the same.

That's because there is some logic behind it. We know that "to" and "too" perform a different kind of function. The same applies to "used" and "use". They too perform a different function._


----------



## ribran

Peterdg said:


> I'm sorry Ribran, but this is no agrument.
> 
> When I say: "I know that too", I write "too" and not "to", although they sound exactly the same.
> 
> That's because there is some logic behind it. We know that "to" and "too" perform a different kind of function. The same applies to "used" and "use". They too perform a different function.



Exactly, because _too_ and _to_ perform different functions. _Didn't used to do something_ and _Didn't use to do something_ mean the exact same thing *and* sound exactly the same, so I still don't understand how anyone could distinguish the two in speech. 

If I ask my dad if he likes chicken, and he tells me that he didn't in the past, but now he does, I know that his response would be written, "I didn't use to, but now I do," but I don't know what he "truly" said. He could have been saying "used," but I wouldn't know that.


----------



## ribran

mirx said:


> Sorry to hijack the post, but what does it exactly mean?
> Is it any different to "I might see you" or "I could see you"?



Hi mirx,

I can't explain all the subtleties to you because I don't use double modals, but it basically means, "(Perhaps) I might be able to."


----------



## Doval

ribran said:


> Exactly, because _too_ and _to_ perform different functions. _Didn't used to do something_ and _Didn't use to do something_ mean the exact same thing *and* sound exactly the same, so I still don't understand how anyone could distinguish the two in speech.
> 
> If I ask my dad if he likes chicken, and he tells me that he didn't in the past, but now he does, I know that his response would be written, "I didn't use to, but now I do," but I don't know what he "truly" said. He could have been saying "used," but I wouldn't know that.


Do they mean the same thing, really?  I don't think they do, any more than "didn't went" and "didn't go" don't mean the same thing.  The first one has no logical meaning in English, while the second does.  The same is true of "didn't used to" and "didn't use to."  When you have a double-verb phrase like this (didn't use to, can go, don't dance, will fly, or whatever other combination you might think of), ONLY THE FIRST VERB IS CONJUGATED.  The second verb always appears in the infinitive, regardless of what you might hear.  If both verbs are conjugated, the phrase is meaningless.


----------



## ribran

Doval said:


> When you have a double-verb phrase like this (didn't use to, can go, don't dance, will fly, or whatever other combination you might think of), ONLY THE FIRST VERB IS CONJUGATED.



As I have said several times now, there is no audible difference between the two.



Doval said:


> The second verb always appears in the infinitive, regardless of what you might hear.  If both verbs are conjugated, the phrase is meaningless.



Obviously, I know this, so I never "hear," "didn't used to," but someone who doesn't know this may "hear" it all the time.


----------



## inib

ribran said:


> As I have said several times now, there is no audible difference between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi again, ribran,
> First of all, in case other readers misinterpret this, I'd like to make it very clear that I consider that the only correct form is "I didn't use to...".
> However, I'm writing to comment on the question of pronunciation and I can see your point that the difference is often inaudible. But I wouldn't say ALWAYS. Because I remember as a child hearing "I didn't use*d* to.." or "Did you use*d* to...?", and wondering if it was right or wrong. I'm saying it out loud to myself right now, and have to admit that the difference is minute in my own accent, but the letter "d" in "used" is actually pronounced /d/ because it follows the sound /z/, so there is no reason for it to totally merge into the /t/ at the beginning of "to".
Click to expand...


----------



## dexterciyo

This is included in the Oxford Dictionary of English:

*1* The construction *used to* is standard, but difficulties arise with the formation of negatives and questions. Traditionally, *used to* behaves as a modal verb, so that questions and negatives are formed without the auxiliary verb _do_, as in _it used not to be like that_ and _used she to come here?_ In modern English, this question form is now regarded as very formal or awkwardly old-fashioned, and the use with _do_ is broadly accepted as standard, as in _did she use to come here?_ Negative constructions with _do_, on the other hand (as in _it didn't use to be like that_), although common, are informal and are not generally accepted. 

*2* There is sometimes confusion over whether to use the form *used to* or *use to*, which has arisen largely because the pronunciation is the same in both cases. Except in negatives and questions, the correct form is *used to*: _we used to go to the movies all the time_ (not _we use to go to the movies_). However, in negatives and questions using the auxiliary verb _do_, the correct form is *use to*, because the form of the verb required is the infinitive: _I didn't use to like mushrooms_ (not _I didn't used to like mushrooms_).


----------



## abb1025

inib said:


> ribran said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said several times now, there is no audible difference between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi again, ribran,
> First of all, in case other readers misinterpret this, I'd like to make it very clear that I consider that the only correct form is "I didn't use to...".
> However, I'm writing to comment on the question of pronunciation and I can see your point that the difference is often inaudible. But I wouldn't say ALWAYS. Because I remember as a child hearing "I didn't use*d* to.." or "Did you use*d* to...?", and wondering if it was right or wrong. I'm saying it out loud to myself right now, and have to admit that the difference is minute in my own accent, but the letter "d" in "used" is actually pronounced /d/ because it follows the sound /z/, so there is no reason for it to totally merge into the /t/ at the beginning of "to".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> inib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ribran said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said several times now, there is no audible difference between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Inib,
> In your speech, there may be a difference between the pronunciation of used to and use to, but in the speech of people where I live (U.S.), the s in use is always pronounced /z/ when it is NOT used as a modal verb , even before t and d: in I use two hands to eat a sandwich or I used two sheets of paper, the sound is /z/ . In fact, the pronunciation of use with the non-voiced /s/sound is exactly what distinguishes the modal form, I used to, and the noun form, the use or usage, from the non-modal. I am not a linguist, but I don't see how a /d/ sound could be produced between an unvoiced /s/ and a /t/, unless you slipped a schwa in between, and I've never heard that with used to. So I have to agree with Riban, that once you make that s an unvoiced sound, there's no way to hear the difference between use to and used to.  However, I totally agree with you that the only correct form in standard written English is "didn't use to."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## inib

abb1025 said:


> inib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ribran said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said several times now, there is no audible difference between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> inib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ribran said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have said several times now, there is no audible difference between the two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Inib,
> In your speech, there may be a difference between the pronunciation of used to and use to, but in the speech of people where I live (U.S.), the s in use is always pronounced /z/ when it is NOT used as a modal verb , even before t and d: in I use two hands to eat a sandwich or I used two sheets of paper, the sound is /z/ . In fact, the pronunciation of use with the non-voiced /s/sound is exactly what distinguishes the modal form, I used to, and the noun form, the use or usage, from the non-modal. I am not a linguist, but I don't see how a /d/ sound could be produced between an unvoiced /s/ and a /t/, unless you slipped a schwa in between, and I've never heard that with used to. So I have to agree with Riban, that once you make that s an unvoiced sound, there's no way to hear the difference between use to and used to. However, I totally agree with you that the only correct form in standard written English is "didn't use to."
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Abb, for your comments. I based mine on my (scarce) knowledge and (multiple) suppositions two years ago, but having followed WR avidly since then, I realise that I was far too categorical .
> I didn't invent the anecdote I mentioned, I still remember it that way, but I now know that what I hear and what I think I hear are not always the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## JennyTW

I don't understand what has been said about "used to" sometimes being a modal verb. Modal verbs have certain characteristics ( no "to" after the modal, no auxiliary "do" necessary for negatives and questions, to name just a couple), which are clearly not true of used to.
Also, is there really anyone who pronounces "used to" with a voiced "z" sound?


----------



## SevenDays

I suppose what they mean is that* used to* behaves like a modal verb in that its form is invariable in the 3rd person singular, just like, for example, *might*: _I used to go_, _she used to go_; _I might go_, _she might go_, etc. But *used to* doesn't share other characteristics of modal verbs, which is why some grammars classify "used to" as "semi-modal."
Cheers


----------



## JennyTW

SevenDays said:


> I suppose what they mean is that* used to* behaves like a modal verb in that its form is invariable in the 3rd person singular, just like, for example, *might*: _I used to go_, _she used to go_; _I
> 
> But the form of  "used to" is invariable in the 3rd person singular because it is used in the past tense, and is thus invariable just like any verb in the past( he looked, she played etc).
> 
> It's true that SOME grammars consider "used to" to be a semi- or quasi - modal ( one I've seen even uses this argument to explain the occurrence of "did you USED" to).
> 
> However, modal verbs are used to express modality - likelihood, ability, permission, obligation etc, and in my opinion "used to" doesn't express any of these. It expresses habits, states or repeated actions in the past.
> 
> Wouldn't "liked to" or "wanted to"  ( as in "I liked / wanted to swim when I was young") also be a (semi) modal then?
> 
> That's why I'm on the side of those grammars that don't include "used to", even as a semi - modal._


----------



## abb1025

JennyTW said:


> SevenDays said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose what they mean is that* used to* behaves like a modal verb in that its form is invariable in the 3rd person singular, just like, for example, *might*: _I used to go_, _she used to go_; _I
> 
> But the form of  "used to" is invariable in the 3rd person singular because it is used in the past tense, and is thus invariable just like any verb in the past( he looked, she played etc).
> 
> It's true that SOME grammars consider "used to" to be a semi- or quasi - modal ( one I've seen even uses this argument to explain the occurrence of "did you USED" to).
> 
> However, modal verbs are used to express modality - likelihood, ability, permission, obligation etc, and in my opinion "used to" doesn't express any of these. It expresses habits, states or repeated actions in the past.
> 
> Wouldn't "liked to" or "wanted to"  ( as in "I liked / wanted to swim when I was young") also be a (semi) modal then?
> 
> That's why I'm on the side of those grammars that don't include "used to", even as a semi - modal._
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> I won't take sides on whether to call it a semi modal or not. Whatever we call it, though, it is quite different from liked to or wanted to.
> 
> The examples you gave can easily be changed to present tense: I liked to swim when I was young; I like to swim now. You can't do that with used to: you can say, I used to swim when I was young, but you cannot say, I use to swim now.
> 
> Used to is not just like any other veb in the past tense, because other verbs like played and looked can be changed to present tense with no change in their meaning except the change in tense. Used to, on the other hand, does not have a present tense form. Use, in the present tense means something completely different. Even in the past tense used means something completely different from used to, whereas liked and liked to mean very nearly the same thing.
> 
> It's one thing to take a side in the debate, but it's another to say that used to works just like any other verb. If that were true, there would be no debate._
Click to expand...


----------



## JennyTW

Abb, sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Of course I know that it's not the same as a normal verb because it doesn't have a present form. I was just trying to make a point about what it expresses, which to me doesn't have any modality about it.


----------



## abb1025

Now I see. Reading it again, I see that your post is quite, clear, but I concentrated only on the first part and missed your point. You're absolutely right that there is no obligation, permission, etc. (And you can't put the subject after as you can with true modal verbs.)
From now on, I will read more carefully and not be so quick to jump in. Sorry.


----------



## JennyTW

No, please don't worry about it. No problem. 
Greetings to everyone.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Just as an aside on pronunciation.

I've always been taught — and I've always taught — the following:

1. I used to /juːstə/ swim a lot when I was young
2. I used two/juːzdtu/ eggs and one spoonful of sugar

but I've always thought that the phonemic transcripion in sentence #2 is utterly unpronounceable.

GS


----------



## JennyTW

Aparentemente sí lo es, por la /d/ con la /t/, pero la verdad es que hacemos una diferencia. 
En el primero, sólo la punta de la lengua toco el paladar/ dientes, mientras que en el segundo, más superficie de la lengua lo toca. 
Pasa lo mismo con, por ejemplo, "we stay / stayed to dinner".


----------



## JennyTW

Sorry Giorgio. I automatically wrote it in Spanish. Do you understand or shall I translate?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Jenny.

No, I understand perfectly, thank you.

Best.

GS


----------



## Kimwold

neal41 said:


> 'Use' is a normal verb and is conjugated like any other verb.  'Used to' behaves more like a modal verb (could, might, may, etc.)  Sidney Greenbaum (_Oxford English Grammar_) calls it a marginal modal and points out that it does not a present tense form whereas the modal 'must' and the marginal modals 'need' and 'ought to' do not have past tense forms.



I had to see this by myself because the whole argument about "used to" is because some grammar books refer to it as a modal verb, and it is modal, but even Sidney Greenbaum conjugates is as a regular verb while being a modal verb (I mean she uses auxiliaries for questions and negative statements) . I quote from her book "The Oxford English Grammar":


"There are several marginal auxiliaries, marginal in that they are also used as main verbs. When used as main verbs they require the dummy operator do. The marginal auxiliaries are used to, ought to, dare, and need; the informal negative contracted forms are usedn't to, oughtn't to, daren't, and needn't. Used to is used as an auxiliary mainly in British English:


In [12] used to (also spelled use to) is used as a main verb with do as dummy operator:
[12] Didn't there used to be deer in Richmond Park
[13] I mean I did use to go down to Bournemouth   "

She clearly uses "did" to emphasize "used to" and drops the "d" while using the auxiliary. Because of course, you can't use the past form of a verb while using an auxiliary, even if you're using a modal.

And I totally agree with Ribran that "The reason people write _didn't used to is that it sounds identical to didn't use to."
_


----------



## vertebrado

abb1025 said:


> The examples you gave can easily be changed to present tense: I liked to swim when I was young; I like to swim now. You can't do that with used to: *you can say, I used to swim when I was young, but you cannot say, I use to swim now. *
> 
> Used to is not just like any other veb in the past tense, because other verbs like played and looked can be changed to present tense with no change in their meaning except the change in tense. Used to, on the other hand, does not have a present tense form. Use, *in the present tense means something completely different*. Even in the past tense used means something completely different from used to, whereas liked and liked to mean very nearly the same thing.


¿Se refiere a que en pasado "used to" significa "soler" y en presente "use to" NO significa "suelo"? Entonces, ¿cómo se dice en inglés "Yo suelo nadar todos los dias"?
¿Por qué no se puede decir "I use to swim everyday"?

PD: Probablemente quien escribió esto no me responda pues es un post muy antiguo pero si alguien puede responderme sería de gran ayuda. Gracias.


----------



## JennyTW

vertebrado said:


> ¿Se refiere a que en pasado "used to" significa "soler" y en presente "use to" NO significa "suelo"? Entonces, ¿cómo se dice en inglés "Yo suelo nadar todos los dias"?
> ¿Por qué no se puede decir "I use to swim everyday"?
> 
> PD: Probablemente quien escribió esto no me responda pues es un post muy antiguo pero si alguien puede responderme sería de gran ayuda. Gracias.



Sí, se refiere a eso. Como "used to" SOLO se usa en pasado, no sirve para traducir; "Yo suelo nadar todos los dias". Para eso decimos "I USUALLY swim every day". 

De todas formas, para mí, "solía" no es la mejor forma de traducir "used to", porque no siempre sirve. ¿Que pasa con lo siguiente?

I used to live in London. - yo SOLÍA vivir en Londres - no está bien. La forma más segura de traducir "used to", y la que más se usa (más que "solía"), es con el imperfecto (con la adición de "antes" quizás para que quede más claro). 

(Antes) vivía en Londres. 
Antes jugaba al tenis, pero ya no. - I used to play tennis but not any more.


----------



## SevenDays

También tenemos el adjetivo "used to", que se usa con "to be" en cualquier tiempo: _I'm used to it, I was used to the snow, I will be used to the heat_, etc. Como verbo auxiliar, "used to" sólo se usa en pasado, como bien ha dicho JennyTW, y ya lo expresa el imperfecto (_used to live ~ vivía_); para mí, "solía vivir" es una opción muy natural, pero quizás sea más literaria o enfática.   
Cheers


----------



## vertebrado

JennyTW said:


> Sí, se refiere a eso. Como "used to" SOLO se usa en pasado, no sirve para traducir; "Yo suelo nadar todos los dias". Para eso decimos "I USUALLY swim every day".
> 
> De todas formas, para mí, "solía" no es la mejor forma de traducir "used to", porque no siempre sirve. ¿Que pasa con lo siguiente?
> 
> I used to live in London. - yo SOLÍA vivir en Londres - no está bien. La forma más segura de traducir "used to", y la que más se usa (más que "solía"), es con el imperfecto (con la adición de "antes" quizás para que quede más claro).
> 
> (Antes) vivía en Londres.
> Antes jugaba al tenis, pero ya no. - I used to play tennis but not any more.


Interesante.
A oídos de un nativo de inglés ¿que se le vendría a la cabeza si oyera/leyera en perfecto acento inglés o en un contexto escrito que pida presente "I use to play football"? Lo pregunto como curiosidad y por saber si en los automatismos del cerebro inglés se activaría la analogía con el tiempo pasado de "I used to play football" y por tanto lo traducirían como una versión rara de "suelo jugar al futbol" o si por el contrario la primera reacción sería interpretarlo algo así como que "Yo _utilizo _jugar al futbol". No sé, me parece interesante. ¿qué decís los nativos?

Por otra parte, no me parece mala idea lo de emplear el pretérito imperfecto para traducir "used to" al español, a pesar de que para mi, al igual que SevenDays, solía y suelo me parecen normales en todas las circunstancias que se me ocurren ahora mismo. Un saludo.


----------



## JennyTW

¿De verdad que os parece normal "yo solía vivir en Londres pero ahora vivo en Madrid"?

Vertebrado, para contestar a tu pregunta, si alguien dijera "I use to play football" (ju:s), entenderíamos directamente "I used to play football", puesto que yo, al menos con mi acento, no veo diferencia en la pronunciación. Si lo viéramos escrito, pensaríamos que es un error. 
Ahora, si la pronunciación fuera /ju:z/, podríamos pensar que es parte de una frase más larga, "this is the ball I use to play football (with)".


----------



## Kimwold

JennyTW said:


> ¿De verdad que os parece normal "yo solía vivir en Londres pero ahora vivo en Madrid"?
> 
> Vertebrado, para contestar a tu pregunta, si alguien dijera "I use to play football" (ju:s), entenderíamos directamente "I used to play football", puesto que yo, al menos con mi acento, no veo diferencia en la pronunciación. Si lo viéramos escrito, pensaríamos que es un error.
> Ahora, si la pronunciación fuera /ju:z/, podríamos pensar que es parte de una frase más larga, "this is the ball I use to play football (with)".



Ay no, porque tanta confusión, no entiendo porque se complican, es muy fácil.. Simplemente se dice "*used to*" para afirmaciones, y para negaciones y preguntas usando un auxiliar se le quita la "d" como cualquier otro verbo que quieras usar en pregunta o negación, o sea, "Did you *use to*"... o también para enfatizar una afirmación, ejemplo:

I did go... No diríamos I did went ... O sea, el verbo en infinitivo con auxiliar en pasado.
Eso es todo.


----------



## JennyTW

Kimwold said:


> Ay no, porque tanta confusión, no entiendo porque se complican, es muy fácil.. Simplemente se dice "*used to*" para afirmaciones, y para negaciones y preguntas usando un auxiliar se le quita la "d" como cualquier otro verbo que quieras usar en pregunta o negación, o sea, "Did you *use to*"... o también para enfatizar una afirmación, ejemplo:
> 
> I did go... No diríamos I did went ... O sea, el verbo en infinitivo con auxiliar en pasado.
> Eso es todo.


Por supuesto. Esto está clarísimo. Pero me ha hecho Vertebrado una pregunta y que menos que contestarle, ¿no?


----------



## Kimwold

JennyTW said:


> Por supuesto. Esto está clarísimo. Pero me ha hecho Vertebrado una pregunta y que menos que contestarle, ¿no?



Asi es


----------



## JohanJM

JennyTW said:


> Ahora, si la pronunciación fuera /ju:z/, podríamos pensar que es parte de una frase más larga, "this is the ball I use to play football (with)".



...O que necesito una raya de coca para durar un partido.   [No, en serio.  Según la prosodia.]

"I use (/ju:z/) to play football." = _I take drugs to play football._  Para entenderlo así, el hablante habrá tenido que decir "use" con mayor entonación en vez de "football".


----------



## JennyTW

JohanJM said:


> ...O que necesito una raya de coca para durar un partido.   [No, en serio.  Según la prosodia.]
> 
> "I use (/ju:z/) to play football." = _I take drugs to play football._  Para entenderlo así, el hablante habrá tenido que decir "use" con mayor entonación en vez de "football".



¡Ah claro, también, también!


----------



## Gottit

I do not agree with the use of "used to" in this way. 
"Did you used to" is wrong even though it is presented as correct in the book, "English Grammar in use" by Raymond Murphy. 
The correct way of saying the same thing would be, "Did you ..." simply; without the "used to", which makes no sense at all!


----------



## SuprunP

This is what R. Quirk et al have to say about it:

3.44 *used to*
_Used to_ denotes a habit or a state that existed in the past, and is therefore semantically not so much a modal auxiliary as an auxiliary of tense and aspect. In formal terms, however, it fits the marginal modal category.
[...]
The construction _did ... use to_ is preferred to other constructions in both AmE and BrE. The spelling _did ... used to_, however, is often regarded as nonstandard.
(A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language; R. Quirk)


----------

