# Used to vs Would



## Anushka Athukorala

Hello Members 
I read these two on the internet.
_A.I didn't use to sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.
B.Did you use to come here as a child?_

I am interested to know if I can use "would" in place of "used to" with the same meaning?
_C. I wouldn't sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.
D. Would you come here as a child? 🤔🤔_


----------



## Luca Tufo

Yes, you can use "would" with usual actions in the past


----------



## Barque

Anushka Athukorala said:


> C. I wouldn't sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.


This sounds a little off to me.


Anushka Athukorala said:


> D. Would you come here as a child?


In context I guess it'd be understood but I'd stick to the original wording.

Another option is "Did you come here as a child?" if you want to avoid "used to".


----------



## Hermione Golightly

'Would' would not be used here to describe  or ask about habitual or frequent actions or states in the past. Not sleeping well is not a voluntary activity.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Anushka Athukorala said:


> I am interested to know if I can use "would" in place of "used to" with the same meaning?
> _D. Would you come here as a child? 🤔🤔_


"Would you come here as a child?" makes no sense at all to me.

There are relatively few situations where "would" can be used to mean "used to", for a repeated or habitual action in the past. It is commonly used with "whenever", but there are few other situations when it can be used.


----------



## rhitagawr

I think _would_ implies that there's something noteworthy about the action in the past and that the action was voluntary. This is like _will_ in the present.
_He'd drink five pints a night_. An impressive amount.
_He used to drink five pints a night_. This sounds, or at least can sound, more neutral in tone.
Not sleeping well isn't voluntary and just going somewhere isn't anything special. So _used to_ is better here.
_Would you do this as a teacher?_ means something like _Do you think this is something a teacher ought to do?_ It doesn't mean _Did you _(_used to_)_ do this when you were a teacher?_


----------



## Luca Tufo

From my cambridge b1 book:

You can also use would to talk, about things that happened  regularly in the past


----------



## rhitagawr

That's true. But _would_ refers to a person's habits and perhaps to the affect his actions had on other people. It doesn't just mean that someone did something. You wouldn't say _I'd go to school every day_. But I wouldn't want to make too much of this point.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Luca Tufo said:


> From my cambridge b1 book:
> 
> You can also use would to talk, about things that happened regularly in the past


Yes, it is used for this, but only in a limited range of circumstances. "Whenever the doorbell rang, the dog would bark", for example, would be fine; "whenever" and "would" are often used together like this.

You can also use "would" when you have established a particular situation:
In the winter, a log fire would be lit in the great fireplace and kept burning day and night.​On sunny days, we would go swimming.​
However, you cannot use "would" for a repeated or habitual action without any form of introduction to the situation. Using "used to" would be fine. You could, for example, begin a conversation by saying "I used to go to school by bus". However, you could not begin a conversation by saying "I would go to school by bus", even though, in the appropriate context "I would go to school by bus" might be fine.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I don't recognise a lot of the points made by native speakers here.

I'm familiar, of course, with the point made by Luca's book.

I find that the would-imperfect can cast a sort of autumnal glow over an account of what used to be done, often in a quite distant past.  I don't think it matters much what was done: I could certainly say _When we lived in the Trentino the sun would shine every morning and I would go to school with my satchel on my back_ _and a happy smile on my face_. It may sound sick-making but it's in no way unidomatic.


Anushka Athukorala said:


> C. I wouldn't sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.
> D. Would you come here as a child?


_I didn't used to sleep very well_ would be fine,_ I wouldn't sleep very well_ could easily have a different meaning, for the reasons given by Hermione.

_Used you to come here as a child? _if translated, would more probably be rendered in the would-form as _As a child, used you come here? _ We probably avoid this form because _Would you come here? _is more often used as a gentle imperative. There's another problem: _as a child _would often be read by natives to mean_ in the guise of a child_.


----------



## se16teddy

Uncle Jack said:


> you could not begin a conversation by saying "I would go to school by bus"


I suppose this is because _would _is multifunctional, and “repeated past activity” is not one of its commonest functions.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

se16teddy said:


> I suppose this is because _would _is multifunctional, and “repeated past activity” is not one of its commonest functions.


You don't think it's also partly because you'd be unlikely to start a conversation by saying _I used to go to school by bus_.


----------



## lingobingo

My take on it…


Anushka Athukorala said:


> _A. I didn't use to sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.
> B. Did you use to come here as a child?_
> 
> I am interested to know if I can use "would" in place of "used to" with the same meaning?
> _C. I wouldn't sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.
> D. Would you come here as a child? _


Short answer: No. 

This particular use of *would* — meaning: was in the habit of [doing something], implying *would* *always*/habitually — doesn’t really work as a question (not least because it would almost inevitably sound ambiguous, as it does in D above). It’s perfectly possible in a statement, but how well it works depends heavily on the context into which it’s put. For example:

The baby used not to sleep through the night. ​The baby would not sleep through the night.  (if what?)​For the first few months, our baby would not sleep through the night. ​


----------



## rhitagawr

I agree with the point Thomas makes in his Trentino sentence. It tells a little story and so is about the person's habits. The sun, being an inanimate object, doesn't have habits like the rest of us, but the _would_ fits in the context. The style's a bit gushing, but I agree that the sentence is idiomatic.
If I were simply telling someone how I went to school, I'd say _went_ or _used to go_ and not _would_. I'd need a particular reason for saying _would_. The mere fact that something happened wouldn't be it.


----------



## velisarius

"Would" is more often used as a conditional than as a "used to" equivalent, so there's always the danger of misleading the reader. I think that, if it isn't quite clear which meaning of "would" is intended, it's better to rephrase. 

It often means "refused to", and that's what's suggested to me here: _For the first few months, our baby would not sleep through the night. _It sounds like a frustrated parent speaking, rather than a parent dispassionately recording the baby's habitual behaviour (_Our baby would often sleep on her back)_.


----------



## se16teddy

Thomas Tompion said:


> You don't think it's also partly because you'd be unlikely to start a conversation by saying _I used to go to school by bus._





velisarius said:


> "Would" is more often used as a conditional than as a "used to" equivalent, so there's always the danger of misleading the reader.


  _I used to go to school by bus _is an odd way to start a conversation, because conversations usually start with a greeting or a comment on something of present common concern or interest. But you could well start a short story beginning  _I used to go to school by bus_; whereas it would be (maybe intentionally) confusing to begin _I would go to school by bus. _


----------



## Thomas Tompion

se16teddy said:


> _I used to go to school by bus _is an odd way to start a conversation, because conversations usually start with a greeting or a comment on something of present common concern or interest. But you could well start a short story beginning  _I used to go to school by bus_; whereas it would be (maybe intentionally) confusing to begin _I would go to school by bus. _


It's an interesting point.  I think a writer might choose to start_* I would go to school by bus*_ not to be confusing but to be intriguing.

I take your point that such an opening would cause the reader to be more curious about the context.


----------



## rhitagawr

I agree with Velasarius's point about _refused to_. _Would not_ in this sense normally refers to one occasion. I'd need some context if I people wanted me to think it referred to something regular. _I turned the ignition and the car wouldn't start_ is all right. _I turned the ignition and the car would start_ doesn't make sense.


----------



## Anushka Athukorala

Uncle Jack said:


> "Would you come here as a child?" makes no sense at all to me.
> 
> There are relatively few situations where "would" can be used to mean "used to", for a repeated or habitual action in the past. It is commonly used with "whenever", but there are few other situations when it can be used.



Hello Jack
Thank you very much for your answer. So what if I modify the same sentence as below? 
"Would you always/ often come here as a child?
"Would you come here when you were a child?
Do these sound natural to you now? 

What is your opinion on the sentence below?
 I wouldn't sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.


----------



## Anushka Athukorala

lingobingo said:


> My take on it…
> 
> Short answer: No.
> 
> This particular use of *would* — meaning: was in the habit of [doing something], implying *would* *always*/habitually — doesn’t really work as a question (not least because it would almost inevitably sound ambiguous, as it does in D above). It’s perfectly possible in a statement, but how well it works depends heavily on the context into which it’s put. For example:
> 
> The baby used not to sleep through the night. ​The baby would not sleep through the night.  (if what?)​For the first few months, our baby would not sleep through the night. ​


Hello Lingo
Thank you very much for your answer. As I understand we can't use " would" with all the action verbs but "used to" work in almost all situations regardless of context. If we are to use "would" we need to add some "time markers" like "always" and "often" and so on as in 
The baby would not always sleep through the night.


----------



## rhitagawr

I agree with Se16teddy's point in post 16.
I suppose the meaning of _Would you always/often come here as a child?_ is clear. But I'd say _Did you always/often come..?_


----------



## Uncle Jack

Anushka Athukorala said:


> Hello Jack
> Thank you very much for your answer. So what if I modify the same sentence as below?
> "Would you always/ often come here as a child?
> "Would you come here when you were a child?
> Do these sound natural to you now?
> 
> What is your opinion on the sentence below?
> I wouldn't sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.


None of these seem to me to be obvious forms of expression. The first two are possible since you have established a situation ("as a child"), but I cannot think when I might prefer them over "did you" or "did you use to". The last sentence just sounds wrong to me. I would say:
Did you always/often come here as a child?​Did you use to come here when you were a child?​I didn't use to sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.​


----------



## rhitagawr

_Would_ can also refer to a single action in the past when it means to insist on doing something unreasonable. _I told him it was illegal to park there. But no! He would park there and now he's got a parking ticket_. I' thought I'd mention this to add to the excitement.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

rhitagawr said:


> _Would_ can also refer to a single action in the past when it means to insist on doing something unreasonable. _I told him it was illegal to park there. But no! He would park there and now he's got a parking ticket_. I' thought I'd mention this to add to the excitement.


Yes, it did add to the excitement, because, as you know very well, that's not the usage we are talking about here.


----------



## lingobingo

The secret is not to confuse different uses of the word.

In its specific role as a more literary way of saying “*used to* [do]” or “*was in the habit* *of* [doing]”, *would* only works in statements, not questions. None of these examples (from Dostoyevsky) lends itself to being changed to question form:

Often too, he was unconscious, or else in a delirium; and at such times he *would* talk of all sorts of things—of his work, of his books, of his father, of myself. ​During the early part of his illness everyone looked askance at me, and Anna Thedorovna *would* nod her head in a meaning manner…​Sometimes Pokrovski *would* know who I was, but not often, for more usually he was unconscious.​


----------



## rhitagawr

Thomas Tompion said:


> Yes, it did add to the excitement, because, as you know very well, that's not the usage we are talking about here.


Yes, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek. But I thought I'd mention it parenthetically for the sake of completeness. Apologies if I confused anyone.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

lingobingo said:


> [...]
> *would* only works in statements, not questions.


I'm afraid I don't think this is the case.

Here are some examples from the least formal part of the British Corpus.  There's a delicious moment in the last example where the interviewee misses the sense and the interviewer puts the question into the used-to-form.

_I was also gonna ask you about the the farm. Would you all have worked in the farm, when you were young?_  Oral history project: interview (Leisure). Rec. on 7 Jul 1986 

_Was it very early?  Oh yes.  Yes.  We used to get up (unclear) seven o'clock in the morning you know.  Mm . Would you as All the servants would you eat together yourselves?  Oh yes. Yes. _ Gwynedd County Council tape 1: interview for oral history project (Leisure). Rec. on ?? ?? 1985 
_
Did you ever think it was unfair that you had to work so hard for so little money? Oh no. (laugh) You didn't think that?  We had to. There was nothing else for us you know. Yes. You didn't you didn't think it was wrong?  No. No.  No . Would you carry on going to church?  Pardon?  Did you used to go to church (unclear)  Oh yes I used to g-- I used to go to church regularly every Sunday_. Gwynedd County Council tape 1: interview for oral history project (Leisure). Rec. on ?? ?? 1985


----------



## lingobingo

Well, I’m tempted to say that of course there are always exceptions to the rule – but I expect you’d pick me up on that too, on the basis that the idiom uses the word rule. 

But just to keep you happy, let me tone down my comment in #25:
In its specific role as a more literary way of saying “*used to* [do]” or “*was in the habit* *of* [doing]”, *would* only works is far more common in statements, not than questions.


----------



## Anushka Athukorala

Hello Uncle Jack, 
Thank you very much for your explanation and corrections. After reading all the answers from the native speakers it is best to stick to "used to" or " simple past" especially in questions. "Would" is better if there is an introduction to the context. What do you think about these sentences below?
A. When he was still a child, he would lift huge logs which were too heavy for fully grown men. Now he is training to compete in "worlds strongest man".


----------



## Cagey

This is worth looking over: >> Topic summary: Used to/ would

It is a summary of points discussed with links to threads discussing specific contexts.


----------



## rhitagawr

_He will always drink 5 pints a night._ 
On the face of it, - and the _always_ suggests this - this is plain future (although I'd probably be wondering what kind of drink it is if he wants to drink five pints a night).
I think we'd need a bit of context to tell us that it was the 'noteworthy' sense of _will_. _He'll drink five pints a night if you let him_. This sense is colloquial, so you'd probably say _he'll_ and not _he will_.


----------



## Roymalika

Hi, 

_I *used to/would *walk two miles to school every morning when I was a child._

May I ask the difference in meaning please?

Thanks!


----------



## lingobingo

There’s no difference in meaning. But the *would* version is somewhat literary in nature (it sounds like you’re reminiscing rather than just stating a fact), whereas *used to* is standard and could be used in any context.


----------



## Aguas Claras

Another point: I think that, if you use "would" for a repeated action in the past, you have to specify the time period when it took place. For example, the sentence "I used to go to the beach a lot" makes perfect sense alone. However, if you say "I would go to the beach a lot", you have to add something, e.g. "I would go to the beach a lot when I lived in Malaga".


----------



## Forero

Anushka Athukorala said:


> Hello Members
> I read these two on the internet.
> _A.I didn't use to sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.
> B.Did you use to come here as a child?_
> 
> I am interested to know if I can use "would" in place of "used to" with the same meaning?
> _C. I wouldn't sleep very well, but then I started doing yoga and it really helps.
> D. Would you come here as a child? 🤔🤔_


The closest "would" comes to meaning "used to" is really just as the past tense of "will" in one of its meanings.

Sentence D is fine in a context already talking about habits of the past, but it would be a strange way to start a conversation.

Sentence C is more problematic. "I wouldn't sleep very well" is no more likely to mean "I didn't use to sleep very well" than "I won't sleep very well" is to mean "I don't sleep very well". Is "I wouldn't sleep very well" supposed to mean "I wouldn't always sleep very well", or "I wouldn't ever sleep very well"?


----------



## Aguas Claras

Forero said:


> The closest "would" comes to meaning "used to" is really just as the past tense of "will" in one of its meanings.


I don't agree. It can be used, *particularly in narrative*, for a repeated action in the past but, as I say above, you do have to define the time when it took place in some way.

"When we were children, we used to/would go riding every Saturday. Afterwards, we used to/would go to the dairy shop for an ice cream".


----------



## Forero

Aguas Claras said:


> I don't agree. It can be used, *particularly in narrative*, for a repeated action in the past but, as I say above, you do have to define the time when it took place in some way.
> 
> "When we were children, we used to/would go riding every Saturday. Afterwards, we used to/would go to the dairy shop for an ice cream".


In other words, the time has to be set clearly in the past. To me that implies a past tense interpretation and excludes the "conditional mood" meaning of "would" as in "I would if I could."

It would be hard to make sense of something like "When we are children we'll go riding every Saturday", but what I am saying is that this:

_We tended to do the same things week after week_ [_when we were children_]_. We'd go riding every Saturday, and afterwards we'd go to the dairy shop for an ice cream._

is using the verb _will_ in the same sense as this:

_We tend to do the same things week after week_ [_even now as adults_]_. We'll go riding every Saturday, and afterwards we'll go to the dairy shop for an ice cream._

and that your "we used to/would go" must mean the same as my "we'd go".


----------



## Roymalika

lingobingo said:


> There’s no difference in meaning. But the *would* version is somewhat literary in nature (it sounds like you’re reminiscing rather than just stating a fact), whereas *used to* is standard and could be used in any context.


A person has told me that *used to *refers to the action that was done irregularly/occasionally in the past, whereas *would* refers to the action that was done regularly in the past. 
_I *used to *walk two miles to school when I was a child _-> this means sometimes I did, sometimes I didn't, i.e. occasionally.
_I *would* walk two miles to school when I was a child_ -> this means I did the action on a regular basis. 

Can you tell me whether you'd agree with this, please?


----------



## Keith Bradford

Roymalika said:


> A person has told me that *used to *refers to the action that was done irregularly/occasionally in the past, whereas *would* refers to the action that was done regularly in the past...
> 
> Can you tell me whether you'd agree with this, please?


No, don't believe that person.  It's perfectly possible to say:

I used to walk to school almost every day.
I would get a lift from my father on very rare occasions.


----------



## sound shift

Reply to #57

No, I don't agree with that.

_I used to walk two miles to school when I was a child_ -> This describes my usual routine.
_I would walk two miles to school when I was a child _-> I could not use this sentence.


----------



## lingobingo

No, that’s just misleading. This specific/literary use of *would* (strangely not even mentioned in Lexico, as far as I can see?) does imply a past habit, so to that extent it does mean a _regular_ practice. But in a more everyday style, *used to* can replace it and mean exactly the same thing. (Also, you’ve picked a poor example. Not only is that not the sort of romanticised statement that you might write in literary style, using *would*, but if the school was two miles away, _walking two miles_ to get there was _always_ the case! )


----------

