# Mom, didn't there use to be more ice? [didn't use/used to]



## gustavolaime

Tengo esta duda. ¿Está bien este traducción?

- Mamá, ¿Solía haber más hielo?

Porque ahí está la letra " BE "  y es Estar o SER, entonces, yo creo que esta oración está resumido, ya que es la comunicación normal que tiene una persona que habla inglés, y hacen algunas abreviaciones en sus palabras.

Espero sus opiniones y a ver si me verifican mi traducción, gracias.


----------



## Agró

gustavolaime said:


> Tengo esta duda. ¿Está bien este traducción?
> 
> - Mamá, ¿Solía haber más hielo?
> 
> Porque ahí está la letra " BE "  y es Estar o SER, entonces, yo creo que esta oración está resumido, ya que es la comunicación normal que tiene una persona que habla inglés, y hacen algunas abreviaciones en sus palabras.
> 
> Espero sus opiniones y a ver si me verifican mi traducción, gracias.



Está bien, es correcta:
Be: ser/estar
*There *be: haber/existir


----------



## gustavolaime

Gracias, no sabía lo de There Be. Muchas gracias!!!!


----------



## roanheads

Lo veo.
Mamá, ¿ no solíamos conservar más hielo ( en casa )?


----------



## Wandering JJ

By the way, the English should read "Didn't there *used* to be... "


----------



## Agró

Para "didn't used to", mirad aquí:
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=78


----------



## Wandering JJ

Agró, gracias por el enlace. 

La gente solo escribe 'I didn't use to' porque no se oye la [d] entre 'used' y 'to'. Sin embargo, evidentemente la palabra correcta es 'used' debido a que no estamos hablando de 'use' (emplear) sino estamos indicando un tiempo, como solía cantar / yo cantaba cuando era joven - I used to sing when I was young - no 'empleaba cantar...' 

¡Nada me convencerá de que no es así!


----------



## Agró

Wandering JJ said:


> Agró, gracias por el enlace.
> 
> La gente solo escribe 'I didn't use to' porque no se oye la [d] entre 'used' y 'to'. Sin embargo, evidentemente la palabra correcta es 'used' debido a que no estamos hablando de 'use' (emplear) sino estamos indicando un tiempo, como solía cantar / yo cantaba cuando era joven - I used to sing when I was young - no 'empleaba cantar...'
> 
> ¡Nada me convencerá de que no es así!



Si el motivo fuera ese, tampoco habría razón para escribir la 'd' en "I used to". Yo más bien creo que el hablante ha "regularizado" todos los casos como si fuera un verbo como los demás, sin pararse a preguntar qué significa realmente. A mí me gusta mucho "didn't use*d* to", pero gente sabia como Swan o Quirk lo dan como incorrecto.


----------



## Doval

Wandering JJ said:


> Agró, gracias por el enlace.
> 
> La gente solo escribe 'I didn't use to' porque no se oye la [d] entre 'used' y 'to'. Sin embargo, evidentemente la palabra correcta es 'used' debido a que no estamos hablando de 'use' (emplear) sino estamos indicando un tiempo, como solía cantar / yo cantaba cuando era joven - I used to sing when I was young - no 'empleaba cantar...'
> 
> ¡Nada me convencerá de que no es así!


Hi Wandering JJ,

Did you review the thread provided by Agró?  I contend that "didn't used to" is INCORRECT for the same reason "didn't went" would be incorrect.  When using a double-verb combination in the past tense, ONLY THE FIRST of the two verbs should be conjugated in the preterite.  I wouldn't say I "didn't ate" pizza.  I'd say I didn't EAT pizza.  I wouldn't say I "didn't swam" in the pool.  I'd say I didn't SWIM.  I wouldn't say I "didn't had to go."  I'd say I didn't HAVE to go.  I wouldn't say I "didn't used to."  I'd say I didn't USE to.


----------



## Thomas1

Del punto de vista diacrónico, 'I didn't use to' es correcto.
El verbo 'use to do something' se solía utilizar en todos los tiempos y se conjugaba como el resto de verbos:
I used to play football. -- I didn't use to play football. -- Did you use to play football?
I had used to do x long before he started to attend y.
1662 Stillingfl. Orig. Sacræ i. i. §6 Jewels do not use to lie upon the surface of the earth.  (Oxford English Dictionary)

Sin embargo, hoy día, 'use to' (con el significado soler hacer halgo) se utiliza solamente en el past simple (used to) y su forma de infinitivo en la negación/interrogación sigue siendo correcta.


----------



## Wandering JJ

¡Vale! Ustedes empiezan a convencerme de que podría ser así. Personalmente no empleo la frase - yo digo 'I used not to...' 

Sin embargo, entiendo la lógica de lo que me dicen y consultaré con la almohada.

Gracias a todos por los ejemplos y las explicaciones.


----------



## Doval

Wandering JJ said:


> Agró, gracias por el enlace.
> 
> La gente solo escribe 'I didn't use to' porque no se oye la [d] entre 'used' y 'to'. Sin embargo, evidentemente la palabra correcta es 'used' debido a que no estamos hablando de 'use' (emplear) sino estamos indicando un tiempo, como solía cantar / yo cantaba cuando era joven - I used to sing when I was young - no 'empleaba cantar...'
> 
> ¡Nada me convencerá de que no es así!


 


pubman said:


> Sounds natural to me and is very commonly used.


This controversy is created by the introduction into modern English of the use of the phrase "do not"/"did not" to form negative sentence constructions. English, as a Germanic language, once formed its negatives simply by adding "not" after the already conjugated verb. (Eat not/ate not; see not/saw not; know not/knew not; etc.) Under this older construction, we would have no problem. We would simply say, "used not to," to express the negative of "used to."

Things changed with the introduction of do not/did not (don't/didn't). Now, as stated in my previous post, when we want to form the negative (using the motern do not/did not plus base verb), we *always* use the conjugated form of do not/don't plus the infinitive form of the base verb. For example,

Present:

I don't *like* him. 
He doesn't _*like*_ her.
We don't *like* it.
They don't *like* us.

Past:

I didn't *like* him. 
He didn't _*like*_ her.
We didn't *like* it.
They didn't *like* us.

"Used to" is a special case for two reasons. First, there is no existing _*present tense*_ usage of the term. It always refers to the past. We don't say "I don't use to ...." Second, "use to" and "used to" are sonically indistinguishable unless said deliberately and with emphasis. This leads to tremendous confusion on the part of native speakers, of the ilk of_* its/it's*_ in English and *a ver/haber* in Spanish.

However, the term "didn't used to," if correct, would be unique, in that it would be the *only* example I know of where _*BOTH *_the verb "to do" and the base verb "use" would be conjugated. The principle of Occam's Razor states that when faced with competing hypotheses to explain a phenomenon, the explanation that requires the fewest new assumptions is most likely the correct one. Based on that principle, I reiterate that the solution that does not require a uniquely new grammatical rule to accommodate an outlying construction like "didn't used to" is the one most likely correct.

The solution required by the principle of Occam's razor, therefore, is that "didn't used to" is a construction that results from the phonetic confusion of "use to" and "used to", and that "*didn't use to,"* which requires_* NO NEW AND UNIQUE GRAMMATICAL RULE*_ to accommodate its usage, is the correct one.


----------



## Wandering JJ

Gracias Doval.

As I said above, entiendo la lógica de lo que me dicen y consultaré con la almohada. 

Your explanation, along with that of others, is very convincing and I thank you for going to so much trouble to explain clearly the reason for deciding on a particular solution.


----------



## Doval

Wandering JJ said:


> Gracias Doval.
> 
> As I said above, entiendo la lógica de lo que me dicen y consultaré con la almohada.
> 
> Your explanation, along with that of others, is very convincing and I thank you for going to so much trouble to explain clearly the reason for deciding on a particular solution.


Yes, sorry, I was still editing my post when you responded.


----------



## inib

I must say, JJ, that I'm with the majority, because it's the only thing that makes sense to me (and I don't think this is a case of "the exception proves the rule"). However, I will support you in as much as "He didn't use*d* to..." is widely used, and I know I've heard it frequently (and maybe  I even used it before I started thinking about grammar), in spite of some "foreros" objections (on other similar threads, which I can't find now) that "_use to_" and "_used to_" are extremely close phonetically.
Enjoy your pillow!


----------



## pubman

Excellent post Doval, 

I will try to digest it, thanks for the effort you put into it.


----------



## cipotarebelde

roanheads said:


> Lo veo.
> Mamá, ¿ no solíamos conservar más hielo ( en casa )?



I still don't know if the original question referred to whether there was more ice in the past or whether there was usually more ice before. Maybe I need an almohada.


----------



## Masood

Agró said:


> Si el motivo fuera ese, tampoco habría razón para escribir la 'd' en "I used to". Yo más bien creo que el hablante ha "regularizado" todos los casos como si fuera un verbo como los demás, sin pararse a preguntar qué significa realmente. A mí me gusta mucho "didn't use*d* to", pero gente sabia como Swan o Quirk lo dan como incorrecto.


Según parece, el Señor Swan ha cambiado su opinión, ya que en la sección que trate de 'used to', ha puesto un par de ejemplos:

_What did people use(d) to do in the evenings before TV?
I didn't use(d) to like opera, but now I do._


----------



## ribran

Inib, I know you've answered this question for me in the past, but do people here actually pronounce "didn't used to" and "didn't use to" distinctly? I can distinguish the two in a sentence, but only if I slow my speech down to a rate at which no one naturally speaks.


----------



## pubman

ribran said:


> Inib, I know you've answered this question for me in the past, but do people here actually pronounce "didn't used to" and "didn't use to" distinctly? I can distinguish the two in a sentence, but only if I slow my speech down to a rate at which no one naturally speaks.


 

I am sure inib can answer for herself, but for me it's a big "NO"

We don't pronounce it distinctly at all.


----------



## ribran

Thanks, pubman.


----------



## inib

ribran said:


> Inib, I know you've answered this question for me in the past, but do people here actually pronounce "didn't used to" and "didn't use to" distinctly? I can distinguish the two in a sentence, but only if I slow my speech down to a rate at which no one naturally speaks.


Aha! That's what I meant when I said "some foreros' objections...phonetically". Well, as I said before, I remember hearing other children say "I didn't use*d* to" and wondering why they said it differently to my version. At the time, I had no interest in grammar, and it just caught my attention the same way as I was mystified when my cousins talked about "plimsolls" when they meant "pumps" in my language!
So I believe that I must have been able to hear a difference (in certain speakers), though now I can see how very close the two sounds are. 
I'm sorry, I can't give more evidence than a childhood memory.


----------



## mijoch

Much of this thread is intellectual linguistic wanking.

Positve-------there used to be.

Negative------there didn't used to be.

Someone who teaches some other  forms with "use to" to foreign students of English may bear the responsibilty of their failure in examinations-----Cambridge Certificates.

M.


----------



## Doval

mijoch said:


> Much of this thread is intelectual linguistic wanking.
> 
> Positve-------there used to be.
> 
> Negative------there didn't used to be.
> 
> Someone who teaches some other  forms with "use to" to foreign students of English may bear the responsibilty of their failure in examinations-----Cambridge Certificates.
> 
> M.


You cite authority without the supporting evidence. Cambridge Certificates is a program of Cambridge University, the publisher of the Cambridge Dictionary of English, correct?

Well, that dictionary suggests you say "used not to," which I consider a fine option.

It also contains the following: 

"Not standard: He did used to work there, didn't he?"

Once again, I urge you to provide your support for your claims.

Personally, I prefer to avoid this awkward linguistic trap by not relying on any negative construction with "used to."  I never use it personally. There are tons of better options: We usually didn't; Normally I didn't; Ordinarily they didn't; etc.


----------



## mijoch

We covered this on the TEFL course I did.

Could you cite an authority for "I didn't use to", and I mean a real one.

"I did used to work there"------emphatic form with stress on "did". Standard "I used to work there"

How many English speakers do you know that say ""used not to".

It is standard in English--

I speak English----I do not (don't speak) English.

The negative employs the auxilary "do".

"Used to" is defined by some to be a modal verb. An invariable followed by an infinitive.

"I used to go ice-skating"

"I didn't used to go ice-skating"-----I must admit I don't often use this form-----"I never went ice-skating"

I never---like never write the form "I didn't use to go ice-skating. It just sounds like that when I speak.

I detect from your tone that there is little possibilty of agreement here. I don't care how you speak, and care even less how you feel about how I speak.

Cheers.

M.

In post #27 there is no mention of "use to" used in place of "used to".


----------



## inib

mijoch said:


> Much of this thread is intellectual linguistic wanking.





			
				mijoch said:
			
		

> I detect from your tone ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Look who's talking about tone*. I have my personal preference, and nothing to support it (I prefer _didn't use_ to), but are you seriously saying that a candidate to the Cambridge First Certificate would be marked wrong if he/she chose an option that said "He didn't use to live in such a nice house"?
> If that is the case, I can throw away all the books I have from Cambridge University Press. I admit, they are not new, and unless I scan and send, I cannot prove this to you because I had no access to on-line versions then, but I'd be surprised that such a radical turnaround could have become a fixed and unquestionable norm in a question of just over 10 years.
> I'm open to (certain) changes myself, and most definitely to admitting any regional/international differences, but would "Cambridge"  expect "First Certificate" students to be so very up to date, even if what you suggest were true?
Click to expand...


----------



## inib

Just how many of us have looked at the thread Agró offered us in his post #8? I've only just done it...it is enlightening and I would say a pretty good summary. If any of you have missed it, give it a go.


----------



## mijoch

Hi inib

I can't answer all that. I did a TEFL course monitored by the RSA in the UK. I actually don't know much about the Cambridge stuff, but do know that the course was/is orientated towards their certificates, and other authorities copy to some extent the Cambridge system of which there is also a US version.

In the phrase "He didn't use to live in-------" the part "use to" controls the modality of the infinitive "live". But "use to" is not considered to be a modal verb in all the sources I know, and this was emphasized on the course----it causes much discussion.

The modal verb is "used to", and yes; students are expected to know these and use them correctly, although , of course the teaching method does approach the grammar indirectly.

The verb "use" is used simply "I use knacker laquer to add lustre to my cluster. Does "I use to use knacker laquer to add lustre to my cluster" sound correct.

I use food to stay alive.

Now the modal.

I used to use food to stay alive-----I use to use food to stay alive-----makes no sense.

I don't know of a source that permits the form "I didn't use to have a dog". If a such source is there, please send it here.

Note that some phrases can be modal verbs and other things.

Regards

I've just seen there's a message from you----I'll send this first, and sweat a bit

M.


----------



## mijoch

"used to" as a modal allows expressions in the past.

"There didn't used to be---------" past "used" is past of "use".

"There didn't use to be------------" here "use" is present. Makes no sense.

M.


----------



## inib

mijoch said:


> Hi inib
> 
> I can't answer all that. I did a TEFL course monitored by the RSA in the UK. I actually don't know much about the Cambridge stuff, but do know that the course was/is orientated towards their certificates, and other authorities copy to some extent the Cambridge system of which there is also a US version.
> 
> In the phrase "He didn't use to live in-------" the part "use to" controls the modality of the infinitive "live". But "use to" is not considered to be a modal verb in all the sources I know, and this was emphasized on the course----it causes much discussion.
> 
> The modal verb is "used to", and yes; students are expected to know these and use them correctly, although , of course the teaching method does approach the grammar indirectly.
> 
> The verb "use" is used simply "I use knacker laquer to add lustre to my cluster. Does "I use to use knacker laquer to add lustre to my cluster" sound correct.
> 
> I use food to stay alive.
> 
> Now the modal.
> 
> I used to use food to stay alive-----I use to use food to stay alive-----makes no sense.
> 
> I don't know of a source that permits the form "I didn't use to have a dog". If a such source is there, please send it here.
> 
> Note that some phrases can be modal verbs and other things.
> 
> Regards
> 
> I've just seen there's a message from you----I'll send this first, and sweat a bit
> 
> M.


 Fair enough, mijoch, I have no objections to what you've said in this post. I agree with distinguishing the use of "use" as a "normal" verb and a "pseudo-modal", and I endorse that "use to" (as in your now green example) is not correct in the present. It's not an easy question, and previous threads have proven that we all make mistakes. I'm sorry if my own tone was over the top.


----------



## inib

mijoch said:


> "used to" as a modal allows expressions in the past.
> 
> "There didn't used to be---------" past "used" is past of "use".
> 
> "There didn't use to be------------" here "use" is present. Makes no sense.
> 
> M.


 Sorry, mijoch, we are crossing posts and that will probably baffle posterior readers, as we get closer and more distant again in positions.
I've already said that as a modal, there's no way I'd accept "I use to go" to mean "I usually go/I have the habit of going etc" in PRESENT. 
But as we agree that we are only speaking of the PAST, "didn't" suffices to indicate this tense and putting "used" in the past as well is an unnecessary (and I believe, an incorrect) repetition. That's my take on it, and I think it has a grammatical base... geographical preferences aside.
Thanks for the interesting discussion, in spite of my first (slightly hostile) reaction.


----------



## mijoch

Hi inib.

I don't see how your tone could be more reasonable. I'm the problem-----my birthday's next Friday and I worrying if I'm going to make it, and enjoy the pressies.

"Modal Verbs Wikipedia" gives a good treatment.

Although I was taught that "used to" is a modal, Wiki says it's not, but is a phrase that has modal function that gives access to the past. I interpret that such that it cannot be replaced with "use to" in past constructions.

M.


----------



## inib

mijoch said:


> Hi inib.
> 
> I don't see how your tone could be more reasonable. I'm the problem-----my birthday's next Friday and I worrying if I'm going to make it, and enjoy the pressies.
> 
> "Modal Verbs Wikipedia" gives a good treatment.
> 
> Although I was taught that "used to" is a modal, Wiki says it's not, but is a phrase that has modal function that gives access to the past. I interpret that such that it cannot be replaced with "use to" in past constructions.
> 
> M.


 Well, let's forget the disagreements. Many, many happy returns, and I hope to have more interesting discussions with you after the event,
Cheers, 
Inib.


----------



## Doval

mijoch said:


> Hi inib
> 
> I can't answer all that. I did a TEFL course monitored by the RSA in the UK. I actually don't know much about the Cambridge stuff, but do know that the course was/is *oriented* towards their certificates, and other authorities copy to some extent the Cambridge system of which there is also a US version.
> 
> In the phrase "He didn't use to live in-------" the part "use to" controls the modality of the infinitive "live". But "use to" is not considered to be a modal verb in all the sources I know, and this was emphasized on the course----it causes much discussion.
> 
> The modal verb is "used to", and yes; students are expected to know these and use them correctly, although , of course the teaching method does approach the grammar indirectly.
> 
> The verb "use" is used simply "I use knacker laquer to add lustre to my cluster. Does "I use to use knacker laquer to add lustre to my cluster" sound correct.
> 
> I use food to stay alive.
> 
> Now the modal.
> 
> I used to use food to stay alive-----I use to use food to stay alive-----makes no sense.
> 
> I don't know of a source that permits the form "I didn't use to have a dog". If a such source is there, please send it here.
> 
> Note that some phrases can be modal verbs and other things.
> 
> Regards
> 
> I've just seen there's a message from you----I'll send this first, and sweat a bit
> 
> M.


Mijoch, I apologize for the delay in responding to your request for supporting authority for my argument that "didn't used to" is incorrect. I was in court typing on my cell phone when I wrote my last post, and could not write a proper response.

I don't know whether you would consider any of the following sources authoritative, but they at least engage in the same "intellectual wanking" as do I.

BBC Learning English:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1346_gramchallenge15/

Liberty University, _El Blog para aprender inglés:_
http://elblogdelingles.blogspot.com/2006/08/lesson-30-used-to.html

Learn English:
http://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/usedtotext.htm

Oxford English Dictionary:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/use?region=us#m_en_us1303226.008
...which I cite:
Usage
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?_; 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_). [Emphasis in original; orthography as in original.]

The arguments put forward by the folks at Oxford are the same put forth in my earlier post #14 (q.v.). It is the nature of modal verbs that they do not exist in all conjugated forms. However, in the forms in which they are used, they nevertheless follow standard English rules of conjugation. No one has shown any evidence that *used to* does not or should not follow this pattern.

By the way, another reason to disfavor the use of *used to/use to* in questions and negative statements is that it amounts to the use of *double modal verbs*, which requires the second modal verb [*use(d) to*] to be written in the infinitive, followed by the base verb *also* in the infinitive. _We* didn't* + *use to* (infinitive) + [verb (infinitive)]. _While it's not uncommon for a modal verb to be paired with two non-modal verbs (_I don't like to fish; I don't want to go_), a double-modal combination challenges our conception of English grammar.


----------



## mijoch

Hi Doval.

1 I owe you an apology

2 I hope you were on the winning side in court.

Used to--use to---modal phrases (I find no reference to "use to" having a modal function). Used for structures in the past.

Now---a picture is emerging------statement------used to------I used to eat meat.

Questions and negatives------use to-----Did you use to eat meat?------You didn't use to eat meat.

Englishpage.com. It is better not to use "used to" in questions and negatives although it occurs in informal spoken speech. (Englishpage.com does not say that it is wrong.)

I think that I don't really use the "used to/use to" forms in questions and negative. I'm very used to "used to" in a statement, but much less so in questions and negatives. My last real contact with this was about 25 years ago. I also detect some differences between AE and BE.

It's clear that "used to" has a modal function in positive statements.

Does "use to" have a modal function in questions and negatives? If so, I cannot find a precise definition in discussions on English modal verbs. So I wonder when the change from "used to" to "use to" occurred. Am I simply out of date? I've been living in this country area for about fifteen years and get to speak English two or three times a year. Perhaps I need some English lessons.

Englishpage.com also finds "use to" to be bit of a problem, and suggests that it is better not to use it at all, and for questions and negatives, use the simple past-----something like the suggestions from inib and yourself.

Ah well. It's been interesting, if a bit painful.

'bye fer now

M.

I understand the point that auxilary "do" is followed by an infinitive. I suppose that "used to" is unlike other modals in that it has invariable conjugation but with an infinitive.

Dear oh dear. Something still bothers me. The verb "use" in all its meaning refers to usage. It is only by some ancient quirk that the past tense "used" can refer to happenings in the past. The meanings of "use" and "used" are different when they are modals. I don't see that the infinitive of "used to" is "use to". Perhaps by definition, but not by logic. No problem------I'll never use "use to".


----------



## Doval

mijoch said:


> Hi Doval.
> 
> 1 I owe you an apology
> 
> 2 I hope you were on the winning side in court.
> 
> Used to--use to---modal phrases (I find no reference to "use to" having a modal function). Used for structures in the past.
> 
> Now---a picture is emerging------statement------used to------I used to eat meat.
> 
> Questions and negatives------use to-----Did you use to eat meat?------You didn't use to eat meat.
> 
> Englishpage.com. It is better not to use "used to" in questions and negatives although it occurs in informal spoken speech. (Englishpage.com does not say that it is wrong.)
> 
> I think that I don't really use the "used to/use to" forms in questions and negative. I'm very used to "used to" in a statement, but much less so in questions and negatives. My last real contact with this was about 25 years ago. I also detect some differences between AE and BE.
> 
> It's clear that "used to" has a modal function in positive statements.
> 
> Does "use to" have a modal function in questions and negatives? If so, I cannot find a precise definition in discussions on English modal verbs. So I wonder when the change from "used to" to "use to" occurred. Am I simply out of date? I've been living in this country area for about fifteen years and get to speak English two or three times a year. Perhaps I need some English lessons.
> 
> Englishpage.com also finds "use to" to be bit of a problem, and suggests that it is better not to use it at all, and for questions and negatives, use the simple past-----something like the suggestions from inib and yourself.
> 
> Ah well. It's been interesting, if a bit painful.
> 
> 'bye fer now
> 
> M.
> 
> I understand the point that auxilary "do" is followed by an infinitive. I suppose that "used to" is unlike other modals in that it has invariable conjugation but with an infinitive.


1. Apology accepted.
2. In the strictest sense, I guess I wasn't on the "winning side," since my client plans to plead guilty at his next court appearance. But I do believe I worked out a very nice deal for him on his sentencing, given what the District Attorney was originally looking for.

Now, on to our theme: 

The passage I quoted from Oxford says, "Traditionally, *used to* behaves as a modal verb, so that questions and negatives are formed without the auxiliary verb *do*." The modern practice, however, which in the case of "used to" is still struggling for universal acceptance because of its obvious awkwardness, is to use "do" (really, "did," since there is no present tense usage of the term) in forming questions and negatives. 

As I said in post number 14 (and as also mentioned in the Oxford piece), the usage of "*do*" to form questions and negatives is a fairly recent phenomenon in English. If we think back only to the time of William Shakespeare, or the King James Bible, we will see that it was still common at that time to use the *[verb] + not* format for negatives and the *[verb] + I/you/it/we/they* format for questions, without the "*do*." A few examples:

_Mark 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? ...._
_John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what. ...._
_John 9:29 ... as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is._

Although...*do* was certainly catching on at that time:

_Matthew 26:72 And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man._

Linguistic evolution can be sloppy at times. *Used to* is a good example. The awkwardness of its use in negatives and sentences, and the controversy that awkwardness generates, is why I personally never use it in such contexts. As I said before, there are many viable alternatives.


----------



## Doval

mijoch said:


> Dear oh dear. Something still bothers me. The verb "use" in all its meaning refers to usage. It is only by some ancient quirk that the past tense "used" can refer to happenings in the past. The meanings of "use" and "used" are different when they are modals. I don't see that the infinitive of "used to" is "use to". Perhaps by definition, but not by logic. No problem------I'll never use "use to".


Mijoch,

According to Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, an archaic definition of "use" was 

to make familiar by repeated or continued practice or experience : *accustom*, *habituate*, *inure* <spoke near the sea in storms ... to [use] himself to speak aloud -- _Earl of Chesterfield_>

Therefore, to *use (oneself) to* do something meant to *accustom oneself to* do something, i.e., to *get into the habit* of doing something. The verb is therefore "*use*," not "*used*." We have simply dropped the present tense usage of the verb. The infinitive "*use*" should be used where called for.


----------



## mijoch

Hi Doval.

I can see that. In my old school dictionary I've got---use-----to habituate------v.i. to be accustomed (used only in the past tense, and generally pronounced yoost)------use one's self (shak) to behave.

But---I used to eat meat--past habit---used to(modal).

I am used to speaking in public-----present----used to(not modal).

I see the use of "use to" with do(did) as a strange galimatias (an entry in my old English dictionary). 

I see the convoluted intricacies of a grammarian mind justifying the modal use of "use to", and am not in a position to rebate it. I can however personally reject it, and like you, inib, englishpage,com, use other constructions. I think that's more or less what I've always done. See my "I never went ice-skating" post #25.

I feel that we have arrived at some level of agreement.

I hope you get a good deal for your client.

Regards

M.


----------



## walloper

Vaya lío que habéis montado, vamos que si uno tiene dudas, acabáis de, no solamente de no solucionarlas, sino de agravarlas.

Me quedo con el post del vínculo de Agró, a modo resumen.

Lo que si puedo rebatir a Doval es que en Español (castellano) la diferencia entre *a ver y haber* es clara y concisa, no como la dieferncia entre *use to y used to* en sus diferentes variantes negativas.

Un saludo.


----------



## Wandering JJ

Wow, now I feel guilty for raising this issue in post #5! I can see the logic from both sides now, whereas in the beginning I was dogmatic in my preference for "used". 

I'd like to join inib in wishing mijoch a very happy birthday and many happy returns.


----------

