# The underlying understanding of "used to do" / "be used to doing"



## selfzhouxinrong

Hello

The surface meaning of "used to do" and "be used to doing"is...

"used to do" means a continual action that happened in the past.
-I used to go to bed late.
-We used to stay at home on weekends.
-He used to be short.

But, Why English use "use" to express a continual action that happened in the past? Does "use" have any other meanings? Is this some kind of metaphor? Something used you as a tool in the past？Is there any history about this phrase？

"be used to doing" means something that is continuing now, it is someone's habit now.
-He’s quite used to working hard.
-I am used to drinking tea in the morning.
-He is used to living in the country now.

But, Why English use "used" to express a state of being habit ? Something is often used in some way, so it became obedient ？

I don’t want to just stay on the surface to know; I want a more in-depth understanding.


----------



## entangledbank

We think of 'use' as primarily meaning "handle, work with (a tool etc.)", like using a knife and fork, so that other collocations like 'use bad language' are metaphors from that. But in fact historically the more abstract meaning(s) "follow (a practice), observe (a custom), practise (a skill), engage in (a pastime)" is just as old, and was common: people spoke of using a law, or using a custom or religious sacrament, or using a trade or job, or using exercise. This range of meanings is now obsolete, or if used it would be understood as a metaphor: 'the customs used at sea', 'uses her maiden name'.

There was also a causative use of these senses: a teacher could use a student to a skill, for example using someone in weapons, or to a pastime or habit, such as using your horse to swimming, or using yourself to tobacco. (I am adapting old examples from the _OED_, without quoting all the old language.) This could also be used in the passive: if a teacher used me to weapons, then I am used to weapons (= skilled in them, well accustomed to handling them).

We are now getting towards the modern auxiliary uses. It is easy to see how 'I am used to' can pass over into merely "accustomed to", not specifically "skilled in, practised at". The other modern use comes from dropping a past tense verb. Less than 200 years ago people said they were used to do something (note: not 'doing') or have been used to do it, where today it's just 'used to (do)', a past habit.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation.


----------



## gburtonio

The entries in the OED are fascinating on this. There are a whole range of meanings/uses, many of which don't exist any more. The verb 'use' could be transitive, so you could 'use somebody in/to something', i.e. train somebody, make somebody used to something. There was also a transitive form followed by the infinitive (e.g. 'It is not..surprising that the seal..should use her little ones to live under water.' (18th century)). Once you flip that to the passive, you get something very similar to the modern _used to _+ infinitive form (e.g. St. Poinct..was used to ask, whether the Farce..was ready to be acted. (18th century)).

But … this _be used to_ + infinitive form seemed to co-exist with the _used to_ + infinitive form. The latter is attested from 14th century, and was also used until the mid nineteenth century to refer to the present, i.e. repeated, habitual activities in the present. This is apparently still found in Caribbean English. For a while (16th-17th century) there was also a past perfect version. So maybe there was a sense distinction between 'be used to do' and 'used to do'.

The use of _be_/_get used to_ + noun/-_ing _is more recent, seeming to emerge at the end of the 18th century. There was also an adjectival form _used_, meaning habitual, usual (now obsolete).


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

So the key point is :
Use somebody to do something = train somebody, make somebody practice with it (ways, tools, etc.) again and again, then he master this skill, Use this method proficiently
Finally we can say: "he is used to doing this".

Can I understand it in this way?


----------



## gburtonio

selfzhouxinrong said:


> So the key point is :
> Use somebody to do something = train somebody, make somebody practice with it (ways, tools, etc.) again and again, then he master this skill, Use this method proficiently
> Finally we can say: "he is used to doing this".
> 
> Can I understand it in this way?



I think the idea of repetition is probably the most fundamental, if you're looking for a single, common semantic root. If you train to do something, you typically do it again and again. Something becomes familiar/customary to you because you do it or see it often.

But 'be used to doing' isn't, overall, about habit / a habitual action. It's more the psychological state that occurs as a result of the habitual action. And of course you can also be used to things, so you are used to the weather in a certain place after having lived there for a certain amount of time. Experiencing that weather every day 'trained you' into be familiar with it. But you didn't actually perform any repeated activity yourself, beyond being alive in the place with the weather. So in that case, it's the psychological state that occurs as the result of a repeated experience.

So the meanings are all definitely interlinked, but 'used to do' focuses mainly on repetition (although the sense has been extended to states), and 'be used to' focuses on the results of that repetition.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

gburtonio said:


> I think the idea of repetition is probably the most fundamental,


I think so. 
My thoughts are confirmed, thank you !


----------



## PersoLatin

gburtonio said:


> But 'be used to doing' isn't, overall, about habit / a habitual action.


Did English ever have a tense for a habitual action in the past (I used to go to school), e.g. like French or Persian (my mother tongue)?


----------



## Darlingpurslane

PersoLatin said:


> Did English ever have a tense for a habitual action in the past (I used to go to school), e.g. like French or Persian (my mother tongue)?



I think that would be past continuous in English, and it exists today.  "I was going to school" indicates continuous or habitual action in the past.  

In Latin, the imperfect is used for this purpose, and we are taught that it is acceptable to translate it into English using "was" plus the verb with _-ing _or "used to."  

Amabat = he/she/it used to love = he/she/it was loving


----------



## berndf

Darlingpurslane said:


> I think that would be past continuous in English, and it exists today. "I was going to school" indicates continuous or habitual action in the past.


Habitual and continuous are not the same but they contrast, as in _he lies _(habitual) vs. _he is lying_ (continuous).


----------



## Darlingpurslane

berndf said:


> Habitual and continuous are not the same but they contrast, as in _he lies _(habitual) vs. _he is lying_ (continuous).



That's true, we do have different verb forms in the present for habitual and continuous actions in English, but we use past continuous for both situations when talking about the past.  Context helps us know which is meant.

Habitual: In third grade, I was taking the bus to school every day, but in twelfth grade, I was driving myself more often than not. 
Continuous: I was driving to school when I realized I had forgotten my books.


----------



## gburtonio

Darlingpurslane said:


> Habitual: In third grade, I was taking the bus to school every day, but in twelfth grade, I was driving myself more often than not.



This is marked form, though (i.e. emphasing the repetition in a non-typical way). We would typically prefer the past simple (or _used to_, or _would_) for habitual past actions.

In answer to the original question, no, I don't think English has ever had an equivalent to the imperfect. Which is probably why this use of _used to_ emerged.


----------



## Darlingpurslane

I am truly surprised at how controversial this seems to be.  It is true that this usage (past continuous to denote habitual past actions) tends to be used in narrative contexts, and it does usually require an adverb (often "always" or "constantly"), but it is a common usage.

When I was young, I was always picking fights.
When your dad was a kid, he was constantly getting into trouble.
She was listening to the radio constantly in those days.
Back then, we were spending all our free time at the neighbors' house, because it was much more pleasant to be there than to be home. 

In these examples, we understand that the subjects were not spending every moment continuously fighting, in trouble, or what-have-you; it was repeated and habitual.


----------



## Darlingpurslane

Another example that uses both past continuous with "always" and the construction with "used to" to provide contrast:

My too-perfect-for-words sister was always winning awards, and it used to make me so mad.

Here the two forms provide contrast, because "it used to make me so mad" implies that it no longer makes me mad (but it was habitual in the past), and "my sister was always winning awards" does not imply that it is no longer true.  We know this : it was a habit of my sister to win awards in the past, which made me angry at the time.  But we don't know if my sister still wins awards regularly, without it making me angry, or if my sister is no longer in the habit of winning awards.


----------



## selfzhouxinrong

*@Darlingpurslane*
Your answer gave me more information and expanded my understanding
Thank you


----------



## gburtonio

Darlingpurslane said:


> I am truly surprised at how controversial this seems to be.  It is true that this usage (past continuous to denote habitual past actions) tends to be used in narrative contexts, and it does usually require an adverb (often "always" or "constantly"), but it is a common usage.



It don't think it's controversial at all. I agree the usage is common, but it is nonetheless 'marked'. (I'm not sure if you are familiar with the concept of markedness in linguistics, but you might like to look up the term in order to understand where I'm coming from.) In other words, the progressive aspect (in any tense in English) is not the 'default' choice when talking about a repeated or habitual action.


----------



## Darlingpurslane

The usefulness of markedness is not something I wish to dive into at this time, and I think the essence of our conversation is that we disagree.  When it comes to tense and aspect and how they overlap in English, I think our conventional names for the tenses are less than accurate or helpful.  I would argue that past continuous should be called imperfect, but I think I shall bow out of this thread instead.


----------



## PersoLatin

PersoLatin said:


> Did English ever have a tense for a habitual action in the past (I used to go to school), e.g. like French or Persian (my mother tongue)?


Can't work out the answer to my question.


----------



## gburtonio

PersoLatin said:


> Can't work out the answer to my question.



Not that I'm aware of. Unless you take the view that that would be a good description of the past continuous (which I don't).


----------

