# Used to /would enjoy



## dudass

"Did you use to enjoy family days out?"  Is it possible to replace "used to" with "would" in this sentence and say "Would you enjoy family days out?"

If not, Why not? 

Thank you very much.


----------



## rsanchez

Le estarías cambiando el sentido a la frase. La primera pregunta si los disfrutabas (los que tuviste en otro tiempo), la segunda pregunta si los disfrutarías (los que te podrían dar en el futuro).


----------



## dudass

rsanchez said:


> Le estarías cambiando el sentido a la frase. La primera pregunta si los disfrutabas (los que tuviste en otro tiempo), la segunda pregunta si los disfrutarías (los que te podrían dar en el futuro).



Ok. I will put the same doubt this way:

I used to enjoy family days out when we lived in the south.

I would enjoy family days when we lived in the south.

Are both sentences correct?


----------



## chamyto

dudass said:


> Ok. I will put the same doubt this way:
> 
> I used to enjoy family days out when we lived in the south.
> 
> I would enjoy family days when we lived in the south.
> 
> Are both sentences correct?



Sí, puesto que "would" en muchos contextos también significa _solía_ (used to) .


----------



## JennyTW

Le estarías cambiando el sentido a la frase. La primera pregunta si los disfrutabas (los que tuviste en otro tiempo), la segunda pregunta si los disfrutarías (los que te podrían dar en el futuro).

No necesariamente. "Would" también se usa como sinónimo de "used to", pero.....



 Publicado por dudass  
Ok. I will put the same doubt this way:


I used to enjoy family days out when we lived in the south.


I would enjoy family days when we lived in the south.


Are both sentences correct?
Sí, puesto que "would" en muchos contextos también significa solía (used to) .

No. No es correcto porque, mientras  que "used to" se puede usar con cualquier verbo, "would" (como "solía") no se puede usar con verbos de estado (be, live, enjoy etc) sólo con verbos de acción -" we would go to the beach and we would swim all day".


----------



## Wandering JJ

Semi?


----------



## inglesapoyosj

I agree with JennyTW. In case you want to replace the "use(d) to" with "would", you need an action verb, a verb that implies a process of doing something.

For example: We would be at the beach hours and hours, every day, every summer.

I would rather choose to say:

We would spend hours and hours at the beach, every day, every summer.

PD: The would is used to say that something was done so frequently or passionately, that you would even keep doing it on and on. The would implies a "future" that never happened, but it could have easily continued to occur.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hola, dudass.

You wrote "_Did you use to enjoy family days out?" Is it possible to replace "used to" with "would" in this sentence and say "Would you enjoy family days out?"

_but you did _not_ use "used to" in the first sentence. If you had, you'd have written "_Used you to enjoy ..._", which is perfectly grammatical.

GS .)


----------



## inglesapoyosj

Giorgio Spizzi:

By writting *"Used to enjoy..."* you are suggesting that _*"use to"*_ be used as a modal or auxiliary verb, aren't you?


----------



## JennyTW

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hola, dudass.
> 
> You wrote "_Did you use to enjoy family days out?" Is it possible to replace "used to" with "would" in this sentence and say "Would you enjoy family days out?"
> 
> _but you did _not_ use "used to" in the first sentence. If you had, you'd have written "_Used you to enjoy ..._", which is perfectly grammatical.
> 
> GS .)



I'm afraid "Used you to enjoy..." is not correct.


----------



## FromPA

dudass said:


> "Did you use to enjoy family days out?"  Is it possible to replace "used to" with "would" in this sentence and say "Would you enjoy family days out?"
> 
> If not, Why not?
> 
> Thank you very much.



I think the use of "would" to mean "used to" requires you to reference some past time in order to be clear, otherwise it sounds like the conditional. That's why the sentence sounds much better when you add "when you lived in the South."   I would also add that this use of "would" is not used much in conversational American English.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

I beg to disagree, Jenny. "Used you to enjoy ... " is perfectly grammatical, if a little formal, especially in _British_ English.

GS


----------



## FromPA

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> I beg to disagree, Jenny. "Used you to enjoy ... " is perfectly grammatical, if a little formal, especially in _British_ English.
> 
> GS



It may be grammatical, but I can't imagine anyone actually saying it, at least not over here.


----------



## juan2937

JennyTW said:


> Le estarías cambiando el sentido a la frase. La primera pregunta si los disfrutabas (los que tuviste en otro tiempo), la segunda pregunta si los disfrutarías (los que te podrían dar en el futuro).
> No necesariamente. "Would" también se usa como sinónimo de "used to", pero.....
> Publicado por dudass
> Ok. I will put the same doubt this way:
> I used to enjoy family days out when we lived in the south.
> I would enjoy family days when we lived in the south.
> Are both sentences correct?
> Sí, puesto que "would" en muchos contextos también significa solía (used to) .
> No. No es correcto porque, mientras  que "used to" se puede usar con cualquier verbo, "would" (como "solía") no se puede usar con verbos de estado (be, live, enjoy etc) sólo con verbos de acción -" we would go to the beach and we would swim all day".



Jenny TW I wonder about the verb 'enjoy' being a state verb, I think it is a action verb. ( Azar's grammar book don't list it as stative verb)

I used to *enjoy *family days out when we lived in the south. (habitual past)
I would *enjoy *family days out  when we lived in the south.( habitual past)
My father *would *read me a story at night before bed when I was a child (habitual past)
My father *used to read* me a story at night before bed when I was a child (habitual past)

STATE verbs :
I used to be a Boyscout
I used to have a ford
I used to live in California
I used to hate pancakes


----------



## Forero

dudass said:


> "Did you use to enjoy family days out?"  Is it possible to replace "used to" with "would" in this sentence and say "Would you enjoy family days out?"
> 
> If not, Why not?
> 
> Thank you very much.


Yes, in the right context it is possible. And, depending on context, there may be different nuances.





dudass said:


> Ok. I will put the same doubt this way:
> 
> I used to enjoy family days out when we lived in the south.
> 
> I would enjoy family days when we lived in the south.
> 
> Are both sentences correct?


Yes, they are correct. The _when_ clause helps, but the second sentence still might be a conditional.


juan2937 said:


> Jenny TW I wonder about the verb 'enjoy' being a state verb, I think it is a action verb. ( Azar's grammar book don't list it as stative verb)
> 
> I used to *enjoy *family days out when we lived in the south. (habitual past)
> I would *enjoy *family days out  when we lived in the south.( habitual past)
> My father *would *read me a story at night before bed when I was a child (habitual past)
> My father *used to read* me a story at night before bed when I was a child (habitual past)
> 
> STATE verbs :
> I used to be a Boyscout
> I used to have a Ford
> I used to live in California
> I used to hate pancakes


People on WR have said that "I'm lovin' it" makes sense if we assume "lovin'" means "enjoying" because "enjoy" is less stative than some of the meanings of "love".

Fact is, all of these verbs can be used with _would_ to indicate customary past, given the right context:

_He made a habit of tying his sister's shoes together while she was sleeping. Sometimes he would be nice and tell her about it, but that did nothing towards keeping her from feeling lower in the pecking order._
_She would have a fit every time she found her shoes tied together._
_We used to live in Florida for January and February, but then we would live in New York for the rest of the year. I would always enjoy family days out when we lived in the South._
_She used to love sleeping on the couch in the living room, but she would hate it when she woke up with her shoes tied together._


----------



## inglesapoyosj

Doing some little research through important web dictionaries, I actually found out that "used to" is a modal verb. I didn't know it, I mean, I've always used the "used to", but had never thought of it as a modal verb.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Well, inglesa, not exactly a modal verb (or _auxiliary_), in fact. The presence of TO makes it extraordinarily similar to "have to", which is not a modal auxiliary.

GS


----------



## inglesapoyosj

Wikipedia states "Used to" can be classified as either a modal or a "semi-modal":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_modal_verbs#Used_to

And Oxford (which I trust more than Wikipedia, of course) says it is also considered as a modal verb, and classifies it in the same "group" in which you find the *ought to* and, as you said, the *have to*:
oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/used-to


----------



## JennyTW

It all depends on your definition of "modal verb". For me, "ought to" is a semi-modal ( it takes a direct negative etc, but it is followed by "to") And "have to" and "used to" are not modals (they conjugate normally and are followed by "to"), although they share characteristics of meaning with them.

It just goes to show that it's all a question of opinion, as can be seen by the cited dictionaries.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Absolutely true, Jenny.

To show how dangerously rigid and narrow-minded the authors of grammar-books and other reference works can be, there's the interesting case of the forms _am to, is to, are to, was to, were to_, which—although they share semantic features with the modals auxiliaries, be they "complete" or "semi"—are never mentioned in the treatment of either category. They usually appear, though, in a separate chapter entitled "To BE TO". Needless to remind our readers that, unlike the finite forms cited above—the (infinitive?) _to be to_ does _not_ exist in English.

GS


----------



## juan2937

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Absolutely true, Jenny.
> 
> To show how dangerously rigid and narrow-minded the authors of grammar-books and other reference works can be, there's the interesting case of the forms _am to, is to, are to, was to, were to_, which—although they share semantic features with the modals auxiliaries, be they "complete" or "semi"—are never mentioned in the treatment of either category. They usually appear, though, in a separate chapter entitled "To BE TO". Needless to remind our readers that, unlike the finite forms cited above—the (infinitive?) _to be to_ does _not_ exist in English.
> GS



I agree with your statement' To be to' but ' *be to+infinitive is correct*'
No one is to leave this building
The prime Minister is to visit Budapest.


----------



## JennyTW

juan2937 said:


> I agree with your statement' To be to' but ' *be to+infinitive is correct*'
> No one is to leave this building
> The prime Minister is to visit Budapest.



Did anyone ever say it wasn't correct?


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Exactly. 

GS


----------



## juan2937

JennyTW said:


> Did anyone ever say it wasn't correct?



Sorry, that post was for Giorgi Spizzi.  	  	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	   	 	    	 		                                                                                                                                                    Today, 7:46 AM                                                                                                                                                                                                     #23 
*Giorgio Spizzi* 






  					 					 						Senior Member 					 					                                           					 					 						 							     						


 			 				 					Join DateJan 2010
Native languageItalian
Posts9,194



  	 		 		 		 		 		 				 				 					 				 		 			 				 					Exactly.


----------



## Forero

juan2937 said:


> I agree with your statement' To be to' but ' *be to+infinitive is correct*'
> No one is to leave this building
> The prime Minister is to visit Budapest.


_Am to_, _is to_, _are to_, _was to_, and _were to_ + infinitive are correct, but not _be to_, _being to_, or _been to_.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hola, Juan.
I don't seem to understand your post #24 but if you read my post #20 you'll see that I wrote: _
Needless to remind our readers that, unlike the _finite_ forms cited above—the (_infinitive_?) _to be to_ does not exist in English.
_I never said that forms such as _is to, am to_, etc. cannot be followed by the infinitive of another verb.
And Jenny and Forero agree with me. The latter usefully added _two more non-finite forms_ of verbs which do not exist: the _gerund/present participle_ and the _past participle.

_GS


----------



## juan2937

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hola, Juan.
> I don't seem to understand your post #24 but if you read my post #20 you'll see that I wrote: _
> Needless to remind our readers that, unlike the _finite_ forms cited above—the (_infinitive_?) _to be to_ does not exist in English.
> _I never said that forms such as _is to, am to_, etc. cannot be followed by the infinitive of another verb.
> And Jenny and Forero agree with me. The latter usefully added _two more non-finite forms_ of verbs which do not exist: the _gerund/present participle_ and the _past participle.
> 
> _GS



I agreed with you that *To be to* is not registered in English language, but *be to* yes, sorry if it makes you feel uneasy.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Juan.
_
I agreed with you that *To be to* is not registered in English language, but *be to* yes, sorry if it makes you feel uneasy.
_
I'm perfectly at ease, thank you  

You can't find a sentence where the *words* _be to_ are employed, and this is enough to make me state that _be to_ does not exist in English.
Your own example sentences do not contain _be to_. What they do contain are conjugated (finite) forms of _be_ followed by _to_. But that's different.
A brief comparison with, say, _have to_, might be instructive: You can have sentences with the infinitive "have to" (e.g. "I don't want to have to deal with them"), but you can't say "*I am sorry to be to go to Australia". All you can say is perhaps "I *am* to go to Australia and I'm sorry about that".

Best.

GS


----------



## juan2937

Giorgio Spizzi said:


> Hullo, Juan.
> _I agreed with you that *To be to* is not registered in English language, but *be to* yes, sorry if it makes you feel uneasy.
> _I'm perfectly at ease, thank you
> You can't find a sentence where the *words* _be to_ are employed, and this is enough to make me state that _be to_ does not exist in English.
> Your own example sentences do not contain _be to_. What they do contain are conjugated (finite) forms of _be_ followed by _to_. But that's different.
> A brief comparison with, say, _have to_, might be instructive: You can have sentences with the infinitive "have to" (e.g. "I don't want to have to deal with them"), but you can't say "*I am sorry to be to go to Australia". All you can say is perhaps "I *am* to go to Australia and I'm sorry about that".
> Best.
> GS




This heading of 'be to' is written down at AZAR's grammar book, Chapter 2 Modal auxiliaries and similar expressions, page 68.
Be to is a strong expectation or an official arragement.
I am* to be *at the meeting. My boss ordered me to be there.
Oxford Guide To English grammar *Nº 76 Be to *:
The prime minister* is to *visit Budapest next week
The two leaders *are to meet* for talks on a number of issues

NOTE: In headlines 'be' can be dropped (newspaper)
Prime minister *to visit *Budapest.


----------



## Giorgio Spizzi

Hullo, Juan.

_This heading of 'be to' is written down at AZAR's grammar book, Chapter 2 Modal auxiliaries and similar expressions, page 68.
_
That grammar book, like many others, writes "BE TO" because it's shorter than "am to, is to, are to, was to, were to" but this is not correct: their readers may be induced to think that the words BE TO can be found in an English sentence. 

_Be to is a strong expectation or an official arrangement.
_Yes, if we refer to the finite forms that I wrote above

_I am* to be *at the meeting. My boss ordered me to be there.
_Maybe you should have written I *am to *be at the meeting. As you  see, the sentence contains a _conjugated_ for of BE (_am_)

_Oxford Guide To English grammar *Nº 76 Be to *:
The prime minister* is to *visit Budapest next week
The two leaders *are to meet* for talks on a number of issues
_
Very well, but here too the sentences do not contain the words BE TO. They contain IS and ARE (conjugated forms of BE) 

_NOTE: In headlines 'be' can be dropped (newspaper)
Prime minister *to visit *Budapest.
_
Mind you: What is dropped is not BE but the conjugated form IS (or WAS)

I'm afraid this will be my last post on the subject 

GS


----------



## juan2937

Be to is a bare infinitive as any modal verb I could go, I might go. I think as title, that is all over my grammar books from England and USA the headings are 'be to'

Would it be a long list to put all the conjugated forms under a heading ?

Have a plesant evening and I agree with you about the posting.


----------



## dudass

JennyTW said:


> Le estarías cambiando el sentido a la frase. La primera pregunta si los disfrutabas (los que tuviste en otro tiempo), la segunda pregunta si los disfrutarías (los que te podrían dar en el futuro).
> 
> No necesariamente. "Would" también se usa como sinónimo de "used to", pero.....
> 
> 
> 
> Publicado por dudass
> Ok. I will put the same doubt this way:
> 
> 
> I used to enjoy family days out when we lived in the south.
> 
> 
> I would enjoy family days when we lived in the south.
> 
> 
> Are both sentences correct?
> Sí, puesto que "would" en muchos contextos también significa solía (used to) .
> 
> No. No es correcto porque, mientras  que "used to" se puede usar con cualquier verbo, "would" (como "solía") no se puede usar con verbos de estado (be, live, enjoy etc) sólo con verbos de acción -" we would go to the beach and we would swim all day".


Siempre pensé que forget era un verbo de estado. He visto en un libro la siguiente frase: My aunt always remembered my birthday, she would never forget it. ¿Se trata de un error del libro?

Gracias.


----------



## Forero

dudass said:


> Siempre pensé que forget era un verbo de estado. He visto en un libro la siguiente frase: My aunt always remembered my birthday, she would never forget it. ¿Se trata de un error del libro?
> 
> Gracias.


_Forget_ es "olvidar", y no es un verbo de estado, pero el significado más probable de "she would never forget it" es "nunca lo olvidaría".


----------



## dudass

Forero said:


> _Forget_ es "olvidar", y no es un verbo de estado, pero el significado más probable de "she would never forget it" es "nunca lo olvidaría".


As _remember_ appears in books as a stative verb, I guessed _forget _was a stative verb too.


----------



## Forero

dudass said:


> As _remember_ appears in books as a stative verb, I guessed _forget _was a stative verb too.


Perhaps I don't understand what they mean by "stative verb", but in fact "would remember" can mean either "recordaba" or "recordaría", and "would forget" can mean either "olvidaba" or "olvidaría", depending on context. "Used to remember" can mean "recordaba" but not "recordaría", and "used to forget" can mean "olvidaba" but not "olvidaría".

Does that help?


----------



## dudass

Forero said:


> Perhaps I don't understand what they mean by "stative verb", but in fact "would remember" can mean either "recordaba" or "recordaría", and "would forget" can mean either "olvidaba" or "olvidaría", depending on context. "Used to remember" can mean "recordaba" but not "recordaría", and "used to forget" can mean "olvidaba" but not "olvidaría".
> 
> Does that help?


Stative verbs are *verbs* that express a state rather than an action. They usually relate to thoughts, emotions, relationships, senses, states of being and measurements. These verbs are not usually used with ing in progressive (continuous) tenses. 

We cannot use would to talk about past states. Instead we use used to or the past simple:
When I was younger, I used to like sweets/ I liked sweets/ but not I would like sweets. 

Stative verbs are not supposed to be used with stative verbs like remember, agree, want, etc.

That's what grammar books say. However I have read :When I was a child she would never forget my birthday. And that breaks the rule.
I am in a mess.


----------



## FromPA

remembering, forgetting... aren't they stative verbs? - ESL Forums

Evidently, verbs can be both stative and dynamic depending on how they are used. If I say "I forget who you are" (I'm in a state of forgetfulness), that's a stative use, but if I say "I must be forgetting something" (I am actively trying to remember something, but can't), that's a dynamic use.

"She would never forget my birthday" means "she would always act in a considerate manner."


----------



## dudass

FromPA said:


> remembering, forgetting... aren't they stative verbs? - ESL Forums
> 
> Evidently, verbs can be both stative and dynamic depending on how they are used. If I say "I forget who you are" (I'm in a state of forgetfulness), that's a stative use, but if I say "I must be forgetting something" (I am actively trying to remember something, but can't), that's a dynamic use.
> 
> "She would never forget my birthday" means "she would always act in a considerate manner."


Does that mean that sentence a is correct and b incorrect?

a She would always remember my birthday.
b She would remember her childhood whenever she came back to her village.

Thank you.


----------



## FromPA

They're both correct. They both involve an *act* of remembering rather than a continuous state. 

"She always remembered by birthday" can mean two things: 1) whenever she was asked about when I was born, she knew the date (a continuous state), or 2) she remembered to acknowledge my birthday every year (each year being an individual act of remembering/acknowledging).  The first use is stative, and the second is dynamic.


----------



## dudass

Could you give me then an example in which _would remember_ (meaning a past state) is incorrect?

If there is none, the book is wrong.


----------



## FromPA

I don't think "would remember" would ever be used to describe a past, continuous state; therefore, it would always be incorrect to use it that way if your intended meaning is a past, continuous state.

It can refer to a conditional state in present tense: If I had met him (before), I'm sure I would remember him (now).

It can refer to regularly recurring events in the past (multiple, individual events rather than a continuous state): Whenever I went to church, I would remember to light a candle.

These are the only two examples I can think of. I would consider the first to be a conditional stative use (it would exist in my memory if I had met him) and the second a dynamic use (individual acts of acknowledgement).


----------



## dudass

FromPA said:


> I don't think "would remember" would ever be used to describe a past, continuous state; therefore, it would always be incorrect to use it that way if your intended meaning is a past, continuous state.
> 
> It can refer to a conditional state in present tense: If I had met him (before), I'm sure I would remember him (now).
> 
> It can refer to regularly recurring events in the past (multiple, individual events rather than a continuous state): Whenever I went to church, I would remember to light a candle.
> 
> These are the only two examples I can think of. I would consider the first to be a conditional stative use (it would exist in my memory if I had met him) and the second a dynamic use (individual acts of acknowledgement).


Thank you for your time and your attempt to help.


----------



## FromPA

dudass said:


> Thank you for your time and your attempt to help.


I take it you're still confused.    Don't worry, 99 out of 100 English speakers have no idea what a "stative verb" is (I had to google it to figure out what you were talking about).  The main thing I learned is that most (if not all) stative verbs can also be used in a dynamic way if the context calls for it, so don't be too rigid in trying to apply the rules.


----------



## dudass

FromPA said:


> I take it you're still confused.    Don't worry, 99 out of 100 English speakers have no idea what a "stative verb" is (I had to google it to figure out what you were talking about).  The main thing I learned is that most (if not all) stative verbs can also be used in a dynamic way if the context calls for it, so don't be too rigid in trying to apply the rules.


Yes, I am still confused about the cases in which _would_ can`t be used as an alternative to the pattern _used to_, but I have learnt from you that stative verbs can behave as dynamic verbs when the meaning or use we give them is synonymous with the meaning  of a dynamic verb. That's a lot. The problem is that I have to teach it to my students, and grammar books and native speakers don't agree. And those are my only two sources of information.


----------



## FromPA

dudass said:


> The problem is that I have to teach it to my students,



Now I appreciate the nature of your problem. I certainly don't envy you.  


As to "would" vs "used to," I believe "would" can only be used when referring to events ocurring in a specific timeframe rather than to events not defined by a timeframe.

I used to go to movies when I lived in Spain.  I would go to movies when I lived in Spain (timeframe=when I lived in Spain)
I used to go to the movies (I don't anymore).  I would go to the movies  ( no specific timeframe)
I used to go to the movies all the time.  I would go to the movies all the time  (not a *specific* timeframe)
I would go to the movies all the time when I live in Spain.


----------



## Forero

dudass said:


> Stative verbs are *verbs* that express a state rather than an action. They usually relate to thoughts, emotions, relationships, senses, states of being and measurements. These verbs are not usually used with ing in progressive (continuous) tenses.
> 
> We cannot use would to talk about past states. Instead we use used to or the past simple:
> When I was younger, I used to like sweets/ I liked sweets/ but not I would like sweets.
> 
> Stative verbs are not supposed to be used with stative verbs like remember, agree, want, etc.
> 
> That's what grammar books say. However I have read :When I was a child she would never forget my birthday. And that breaks the rule.
> I am in a mess.


How can you break a "rule" that says something is "not usually used" but does not say when it is used?

Most verbs that relate to thoughts, emotions, relationships, senses, being, and measurements can express both a continuous state and an action or change of state, and even a "continuous" state can sometimes be temporally connected to multiple actions or to multiple observations.

The main issue with "would" and "used to" is ambiguity. "Would" has lots of meanings, and so does "used to". "Would" and "used to" share some, but not all, of their meanings.

FromPa's examples show that "would go" cannot always substitute for "used to go", so the issue is not just with "stative" verbs.

"I would like sweets" has the same problem as "I would go to the movies": not enough supporting context. "All the time" by itself is not enough context to support "would" in place of "used to". "When I was younger" by itself is enough to support "would go" in place of "used to go" but not enough to support "would like" in place of "used to like". It is harder to think of enough context to keep "would like" from meaning "querría", but I think it is possible:

_When I used to go to Starbucks with my friends, I could not stand the coffee they raved about, but I would always like the sweets._

And there are sentences in which "would" means "solía" but "used to" just does not fit. It all depends on the context.


----------

