# He didn't used get up early



## Gamen

Por regla general, no se debe colocar el auxiliar "did" y el verbo principal también en pasado en una pregunta o negación.

Sin embargo, en algún libro creo haber visto la construcción *he didn't used to get up early* considerando el "used" como un auxiliar y no como un verbo en pasado.

¿Son gramaticalmente correctas estas construcciones?

3) He usedn't get up early / Used he get up early? / he didn't used get up early


----------



## West_Fan

Algunas personas dicen que "used to" es un modal, y algunas no. En realidad, no es como los otros en que no acepta el "not"/"n't". Es más coloquial que nada. Y, es particular porque refiere a un costumbre o acción en el pasado y se traduce "used to" con "soler" o con el imperfecto.

"Used" significa usó y "used to" es solía. Si no hay el "to", suena como el pasado de "use" 

En el interrogativo se necesita el "did". En mi opinión, "used to" funciona más como un verbo + un adverbio porque habla de la rutina.

1. He used to not get up early. / He didn't used to get up early.
2. Did he used to get up early? / He used to get up early, didn't he?

No hay "usedn't".


----------



## Gamen

Muchas gracias por la respuesta.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hola, todos.

For all those interested in the subject, there's recently been an interesting — albeit looong — discussion on it in the Italian-English section of our Forum.

GS


----------



## FromPA

West_Fan said:


> Algunas personas dicen que "used to" es un modal, y algunas no. En realidad, no es como los otros en que no acepta el "not"/"n't". Es más coloquial que nada. Y, es particular porque refiere a un costumbre o acción en el pasado y se traduce "used to" con "soler" o con el imperfecto.
> 
> "Used" significa usó y "used to" es solía. Si no hay el "to", suena como el pasado de "use"
> 
> En el interrogativo se necesita el "did". En mi opinión, "used to" funciona más como un verbo + un adverbio porque habla de la rutina.
> 
> 1. He used to not get up early. / He didn't used to get up early.
> 2. Did he used to get up early? / He used to get up early, didn't he?
> 
> No hay "usedn't".



There are lots of previous threads on this issue, and I don't remember there being much support for "did used to."  Just as with any other verb in the past tense, when using an auxiliary verb, the auxiliary verb takes the past tense and the main verb is expressed as a bare infinitive.   I used to / I did use to.   The confusion, even among natives, arises because there is no discernable difference between "use to" and "used to" when speaking, and most natives learn grammar by listening instead of studying.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, everyone.

Here's my opinion on the possible structures and uses of the expression "used to", always pronounced as a block: /ju:stə/.

1. I used to smoke two packets of cigarettes a day; for 12 years now I've been smoking one a day, usually after supper

2. They used not to tell you the results until after Christmas
3. They didn't use to tell you the results until after Christmas
4. They didn't use(d) to tell you the results until after Christmas
5. They usedn't to tell you the results until after Christmas

6. Used they to tell you the results before Christmas? (especially British)
7. Did they use(d) to tell you the results before Christmas? (more popular than the above on both sides of the pond)

Bestest.

GS


----------



## Gamen

Entonces está aceptado como correcto usar "did" o "didn't" junto con "used" a pesar de haber dos marcas de pasado en la misma oración? Existe entonces el usedn't?

They* didn't used* to go to bed early
*Did* they *used* to go to bed early in the summer?
*
Used* they to write letters to their uncle?
They *usedn't* to watch TV = they *used not* to watch TV


----------



## gringuitoloco

"Didn't _*use*_ to." This is sometimes referred to as "informal," but I would prefer this over the "formal" _Used not to._
I won't say "didn't used to" is incorrect, and it _is_ very common, however in either case, I would skip this entirely and simply say "never used to."

I think part of the problem is that "used" could be interpreted as the past tense of "use," so having another past tense verb (did) would make it redundant. 

To me, it would be like the spanish equivalent of saying "terminé de acabar de hacer algo."

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Upon a little further investigation, the etymology of the phrase comes from "wont to" and then "wont." Both of these are used, however, after "had."
Someone had wont to do something. This tells me that it may have functioned more like a past participle. In that case, the correct form, in my humble opinion, should really be:

*They **had used to** do go to bed early in the summer. *This keeps with what would appear to be the original usage. 

Hope that helps. Maybe we can all start a revolution and start saying "had used to" like I think it should be


----------



## neal41

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, everyone.
> 
> Here's my opinion on the possible structures and uses of the expression "used to", always pronounced as a block: /ju:stə/.
> 
> It is important to point out that 'used to' in the sense of 'formerly' is pronounced differently from the past tense of 'use'.
> 
> 1. I used to smoke two packets of cigarettes a day; for 12 years now I've been smoking one a day, usually after supper
> 
> A whole packet of cigarettes after supper is a lot.
> 
> 2. They used not to tell you the results until after Christmas I would say "They used to not tell . . .
> 3. They didn't use to tell you the results until after Christmas
> 4. They didn't use(d) to tell you the results until after Christmas 3) and 4) are pronounced the same; I use the spelling in 4)
> 5. They usedn't to tell you the results until after Christmas
> 
> 6. Used they to tell you the results before Christmas? (especially British)
> 7. Did they use(d) to tell you the results before Christmas? (more popular than the above on both sides of the pond)



In the US the use of 'didn't used to' is largely a matter of dialect.  I speak a Southern dialect and I routinely say 'didn't used to', 'used to could', 'might could', 'didn't used to could', 'might not could', and maybe others.  I believe that these combinations are not common in Northern dialects; I sometimes say that Northerners have a impoverished repertoire of modal verbs.

I have marked your sentences in accordance with my dialect.


----------



## neal41

Gamen said:


> Entonces está aceptado como correcto usar "did" o "didn't" junto con "used" a pesar de haber dos marcas de pasado en la misma oración? Existe entonces el usedn't?
> 
> They* didn't used* to go to bed early
> *Did* they *used* to go to bed early in the summer?
> *
> Used* they to write letters to their uncle?
> They *usedn't* to watch TV = they *used not* to watch TV



De acuerdo con mi propio dialecto.


----------



## FromPA

neal41 said:


> In the US the use of 'didn't used to' is largely a matter of dialect.  I speak a Southern dialect and I routinely say 'didn't used to', 'used to could', 'might could', 'didn't used to could', 'might not could', and maybe others.  I believe that these combinations are not common in Northern dialects; I sometimes say that Northerners have a impoverished repertoire of modal verbs.
> 
> I have marked your sentences in accordance with my dialect.



I absolutely agree that typical AmE has an impoverished repertoire of modal verbs,"  but with regard to some of the phrases you cite,  they could land you on the Jeff Foxworthy list.


----------



## Gamen

Ok, I could see there are variations from one "regional dialect" to  another. Being a non native English speaker, I would like to take the  most standard English possible.
My conlusions are the following ones:

1) As fas As I saw, *"usedn' t to"* (negative short form of the modal "used to") is practically not used, archaic or old fashion.

2) The forms with the* "used"* as a modal *"used he go to the church?* and *"He used not to go to the Church much"* *(or He used to not go to...)* are correct, BUT sound affected and odd/ uncommon. It is preferable in these cases to use "did" + use + to:
*Did he use to go to the church / he didn't use to go to the Church.*

3) I can say both *I didn't use to* / *Did you use to* and 
*I didn't used to* / *Did you used to*, but the first two forms are preferable or more grammatically accepted.

Do you agree with these conclusions?


----------



## neal41

Gamen said:


> 1) As fas As I saw, *"usedn' t to"* (negative short form of the modal "used to") is practically not used, archaic or old fashion.
> 
> 2) The forms with the* "used"* as a modal *"used he go to the church?* and *"He used not to go to the Church much"* *(or He used to not go to...)* are correct, BUT sound affected and odd/ uncommon. It is preferable in these cases to use "did" + use + to:
> *Did he use to go to the church / he didn't use to go to the Church.*
> 
> 3) I can say both *I didn't use to* / *Did you use to* and
> *I didn't used to* / *Did you used to*, but the first two forms are preferable or more grammatically accepted.



I agree with 1) and 2).  The _Oxford English Grammar_ by Sidney Greenbaum calls 'used to' a marginal modal.  It is not the past tense of a verb 'use' which has other tense forms; that is, the 'd' in 'used to' is not a past tense marker.  There is, of course, a verb 'use' which has a full set of tense forms, but its meaning is unrelated to 'used to' and the pronunciation of 'used' in the two cases is different.  Since the 'd' is not a past tense marker, I prefer not to drop it in the presence of 'did' or 'didn't'.  Thus in my opinion the second two forms in 3) are preferable.  It is not major matter.


----------



## Gamen

Ok, I believe I got your point.
If we think that the "ed" of the "used to"" is not a past tense marker, there's nothing wrong with using "I didn't used to" or "Did you used to..."
This way, we are not taking *"used to"* as the past of a verb, but as a certain modal which has the particularity of ending in "ed" due to its exclusive and strict connection to usual past actions.


----------



## gringuitoloco

I still think we should stick with the original interpretation, which holds that "had" should be used, instead of "did." Not to mention that it sounds better.

Just sayin...


----------



## FromPA

gringuitoloco said:


> I still think we should stick with the original interpretation, which holds that "had" should be used, instead of "did." Not to mention that it sounds better.
> 
> Just sayin...


 
To be honest, it sounds pretty weird to me.


----------



## Gamen

But I did not really understand where gringuitoloco would put the "had"... Instead of "did"... *Had he used to go to the church?*... Would this be the sentence?


----------



## neal41

gringuitoloco said:


> Upon a little further investigation, the etymology of the phrase comes from "wont to" and then "wont." Both of these are used, however, after "had."
> Someone had wont to do something. This tells me that it may have functioned more like a past participle. In that case, the correct form, in my humble opinion, should really be:
> 
> *They **had used to** do go to bed early in the summer. *This keeps with what would appear to be the original usage.


Just to be sure that we don't confuse non-native speakers, we should point out that no one in the modern world says this.  We should also point out that in modern English 'wont' is used with the verb 'to be'.  "I am wont to arise early" = "I am accustomed to arise early".  I can also say "I arose early as is my wont".  We should also say that 'wont' is not a common word.  If you think it is a really neat word and use it at every opportunity, people will probably think you are affected.


----------



## gringuitoloco

What I would argue, however, is that the original usage makes "used" a past participle. With this being so, you would never say "Did he gone to the store?" When using "did" as an auxiliary verb, you would never use the past participle. I would also argue that if you "used to do something," that something was an ongoing event_ in the past _and that at some point, you stopped. This would incline me to use the pluperfect tense like so:

He had used to do something [before unsaid point in time where he stopped]. 

It wouldn't make sense to use "did" as an auxiliary verb.


If you're not referring back to two past events, then the other idea would be that you are simply trying to make a negative statement. If that's the case, why would you need to add "did"? "He used to not do something is perfectly legitimate, unless one would argue that you shouldn't separate to and an infinitive. In that case: I used not to do something is correct. 


So I would sum that up like so:
If you are negating a sentence, "did" is not necessary. Omit it.
If you are putting the sentence back in time behind another event, you still wouldn't use "did," but rather "had." -Pluperfect


----------



## Cento

According to English Grammar in Use (Raymmond Murphy, Cambridge University Press):

The normal question form is *did* (you) *use to*...?:
- _*Did* you* use to eat* a lot of sweets when you were a child?_

The negative form is *didn't use to*... (*used no to*... is also possible):
_- I *didn't use to* like him. (or *I used not to* like him.)_


----------



## FromPA

Sorry, gringuitoloco, but I can't make any sense out of what you're saying.


----------



## Gamen

I think I get your point Gringuitoloco.
You cannot use the auxiliary  "did" if then, in a interrogative sentence for example, follows a verb  in the past. This goes against the grammar rules in English.
But someone could counterargue that if "used" is not a past marker but a modal that ends in "ed" I could say "Did he usED to...

I  agree that some times you need to use the "plusperfect", instead of the  simple past, when you are speaking of a past happening before another  past.

For instance, in the phrase:
*"He had used to do things in a certain way TILL/BEFORE he realized he should change and do them other way",*
We are saying that, in the past, he realized he should change after having been doing things in a certain way for long.
So, we are talking about two events in the past, one of them is prior to the other.
1) He did things in a certain way throughout long time.
2) He realized, then, he should change.

In Spanish, we also use this tense (el pluscuamperfecto), like in English, to point out an action taking place before another action.The sentence* "He had used to do *things in a certain way *till he realized *he should change and do things other way" can be translated in Spanish as follows: *"El  se había acostumbrado a hacer las cosas de cierta manera hasta que se  dio cuenta de que debía cambiar y hacerlas de otro modo".*
First: He had been things in a certain way.
Second: he realized he should change.

Another example of plusperfect:
She told me that she *had finished* the task when *I asked*. (Better this than saying: "She told me that she finished the task when I asked").
*"Had finished"* is the first "past" in the "past". The second past is *"asked"*. The plusperfect points out that it was a *previous past ("had finished")* before another one *(the fact of asking)*.

As for the negative statements, we always use the auxiliar did, do, does, etc: He didn't lend me that book
But if we take "used to" as an auxiliary in itself, we won't use one more auxiliary, so we can say:
*"He used to not do something like that*" or (I guess it is the same) *"He used not to do something*"

But If we do not consider  "used to" as an auxiliary, we will have to turn to the auxiliary "did"  and, then, to necessarily place "used to" or "use to" , this last one if we don't want to be  "redundant" by using "did" and "used to" at the same time.

So, in  conclusion, there are two different points of view regarding "used to".  Some will consider it as an auxiliar in itself and, in this case, they  won't use any other auxiliar to deny or ask.
Others will consider it as any other verb, so will deny or ask using the auxiliar did.

That's my humble opinion on this issue!


----------



## Gamen

Vey good Summary Cento!

The normal question form is *did* (you) *use to*...?:
- _*Did* you* use to eat* a lot of sweets when you were a child?_

The negative form is *didn't use to*... (*used no to*... is also possible):
_- I *didn't use to* like him. (or *I used not to* like him.)_


----------



## gringuitoloco

Gamen said:


> I think I get your point Gringuitoloco.
> You cannot use the auxiliary  "did" if then, in a interrogative sentence for example, follows a verb  in the past. This goes against the grammar rules in English.
> But someone could counterargue that if "used" is not a past marker but a modal that ends in "ed" I could say "Did he usED to...
> 
> I  agree that some times you need to use the "plusperfect", instead of the  simple past, when you are speaking of a past happening before another  past.
> 
> For instance, in the phrase:
> *"He had used to do things in a certain way TILL/BEFORE he realized he should change and do them other way",*
> We are saying that, in the past, he realized he should change after having been doing things in a certain way for long.
> So, we are talking about two events in the past, one of them is prior to the other.
> 1) He did things in a certain way throughout long time.
> 2) He realized, then, he should change.
> 
> In Spanish, we also use this tense (el pluscuamperfecto), like in English, to point out an action taking place before another action.The sentence* "He had used to do *things in a certain way *till he realized *he should change and do things other way" can be translated in Spanish as follows: *"El  se había acostumbrado a hacer las cosas de cierta manera hasta que se  dio cuenta de que debía cambiar y hacerlas de otro modo".*
> First: He had been things in a certain way.
> Second: he realized he should change.
> 
> Another example of plusperfect:
> She told me that she *had finished* the task when *I asked*. (Better this than saying: "She told me that she finished the task when I asked").
> *"Had finished"* is the first "past" in the "past". The second past is *"asked"*. The plusperfect points out that it was a *previous past ("had finished")* before another one *(the fact of asking)*.
> 
> As for the negative statements, we always use the auxiliar did, do, does, etc: He didn't lend me that book
> But if we take "used to" as an auxiliary in itself, we won't use one more auxiliary, so we can say:
> *"He used to not do something like that*" or (I guess it is the same) *"He used not to do something*"
> 
> But If we do not consider  "used to" as an auxiliary, we will have to turn to the auxiliary "did"  and, then, to necessarily place "used to" or "use to" , this last one if we don't want to be  "redundant" by using "did" and "used to" at the same time.
> 
> So, in  conclusion, there are two different points of view regarding "used to".  Some will consider it as an auxiliar in itself and, in this case, they  won't use any other auxiliar to deny or ask.
> Others will consider it as any other verb, so will deny or ask using the auxiliar did.
> 
> That's my humble opinion on this issue!


Then I think that based on the two possible interpretations, we can safely say that neither the negative nor question forms would use "did used."
Either it is an auxiliary, and did is omitted, or it is like any other verb, and so _use_ is in the infinitive.

I think these would then be the only two arguable points, and that "didn't used to" simply would not make sense, even if it is "used." (No pun intended.)


----------



## neal41

Gamen said:


> I think I get your point Gringuitoloco.
> You cannot use the auxiliary  "did" if then, in a interrogative sentence for example, follows a verb  in the past. This goes against the grammar rules in English.
> But someone could counterargue that if "used" is not a past marker but a modal that ends in "ed" I could say "Did he usED to...
> 
> I  agree that some times you need to use the "plusperfect", instead of the  simple past, when you are speaking of a past happening before another  past.
> 
> For instance, in the phrase:
> *"He had used to do things in a certain way TILL/BEFORE he realized he should change and do them other way",*
> We are saying that, in the past, he realized he should change after having been done things in a certain way for long.
> 
> Read message # 8 carefully.  Gringuito didn't say that in some dialect people say 'had used to'.  He said that he thinks that is what people *should* say.  I am not aware of any dialect in which people actually say 'had used to'.
> 
> If a linguist is doing field work and studying a language he doesn't know, he first develops a corpus of actual utterances.  Then he creates a model, or set of rules, that explain what he has heard.  The linguist does not try to explain what people do not say.  It seems to me that you and Gringuito are trying to explain what does not exist.


----------



## gringuitoloco

That is correct. People do not say "had used to." However, it should be noted that if someone wanted to use "used" instead of "use" in the past tense, "had used to" us the only viable option (in place of did used to), as per the reasons stated in posts #22, and #24.

Otherwise, it would be "did use to."


----------



## Gamen

Is not possible to use the plusperfect in English to say: "she *had got used* a lot to that life till, at the end, she could change it when someone else showed her there were other ways of being and behaving".
"She *had got used* so much to that life that she couldn't think it could exist any other".


----------



## neal41

gringuitoloco said:


> I think these would then be the only two arguable points, and that "didn't used to" simply would not make sense, even if it is "used."



Words, expressions and grammatical constructions in any language mean what native speakers agree that they mean.  Remember that the function of a language is communication and for communication to be effective, the users of the language have to be "on the same page" as to the meaning of the elements that they use.  Words do not mean what etymological arguments say they ought to mean.

'Inflammable' means 'flammable' because native speakers agree that it means that.  Arguments that it *should* mean 'not flammable' are pointless.


----------



## Gamen

In my previous sentence I (had) omitted the "got", so for this I think it made no sense.

*"He had (got) used to do things in a certain way TILL/BEFORE he realized he should change and do them other way".*


----------



## KirkandRafer

In fact, the 'in' in 'inflammable' is the Latin preposition 'in', not the prefix 'in'. That accounts for its meaning.

That said, broadly speaking I hold with your opinion. You just picked the wrong example, I'm afraid.


----------



## neal41

Gamen said:


> In my previous sentence I (had) omitted the "got", so for this I think it made no sense.
> 
> *"He had (got) used to do things in a certain way TILL/BEFORE he realized he should change and do them other way".*



This sentence is not really related to the previous discussion.  'used to' can be an adjective which is used in the same way as 'accustomed to'.  'got' can mean 'become'.  It often takes the form 'gotten'.  Your sentence is incorrect in that 'do' has to be 'doing'.  'Got' is not optional.

He had got/gotten used to doing things in a certain way before he realized he should change and do them another way.

He had become accustomed to doing things in a certain way . . .


----------



## neal41

KirkandRafer said:


> In fact, the 'in' in 'inflammable' is the Latin preposition 'in', not the prefix 'in'. That accounts for its meaning.
> 
> That said, broadly speaking I hold with your opinion. You just picked the wrong example, I'm afraid.



You are right about the etymology of 'inflammable' and I was aware of the correct etymology when I gave the example. and I was careful about how I worded my statement.  I speak Esperanto and as such I have contact with people who hate English, commonly, native speakers of French. who busy themselves making up arguments about how hopelessly illogical and difficult to learn it is.  In this context I have encountered the argument about how absurd and illogical 'inflammable' is.  Etymological arguments are often made by people who have not studied the matter in depth.  Their arguments may have merit, but they may also be wrong.

A person who believes that the 'in-' in 'inflammable' is the Latin negative prefix 'in-' is making a pointless argument, not because he is mistaken about 'in-', but because it is always pointless to argue that things *should* mean what everyone agrees that they don't mean.


----------



## Gamen

Elimino mensaje porque repetí abajo


----------



## Gamen

Thank you nael41 for your remarks. I see I should have put the gerund after "to". But I realized the use of "had" is possible. 
Now then, going on with the Gringuitoloco's point, in the construction "*had he used to go out often when he was young?*, for instance, Why should we use "had"? 

As far as I know, there's a conditional sentence model which it is built with "had", but the meaning is just "conditional".
*Had Alex asked, I would have been able to help = If alex had asked, I would have been able to help.*

So, If we want to ask a question with "used to", I think the only posibilities, according to what we were discussing, can be:
Used Alex to go out often when he was young? (very litttle frequent)
Did Alex used to go out often when he was young? (not too much frequent)
Did Alex use to go out when he was young? (the most frequent)


----------



## neal41

Gamen said:


> Now then, going on with the Grinnguitoloco's point, the construction "*had *he used to goout often? Why should we use *"had"*?
> 
> You should not use 'had', or more to the point you should not say what you have underlined.  The reason is that, so far as I know, it is not said in any dialect of English.  It appears to me that you are struggling to explain something that does not exist.
> 
> 
> So, If we want to ask a question with "used to", I think we only can say:
> Used Alex to go out often when he was young?
> Did Alex used to go out often when he was young?
> Did Alex use to go out when he was young? (more frequent)



The last two are basically the same.  The difference is in spelling.


----------



## FromPA

This thread is getting very bizarre. I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.


----------

