# there didn't use to be



## par

Hello everyone
is it correct to use the expression _there didn't use to be. _I think that grammatically it is correct but I've seen _There didn't used_ to be, is it possible??
Is there any other expressions more common in English?

thank you!!


----------



## audeman

_"there didn't use to be"

No, that would not be correct.

It would be "__There didn't used to be"

"There used to be..." means that there once was but there isn't any more.

For example: "There used to be a shop on the corner selling sweets, now it sells computer games."

Hope that helps!
Marcus

_


----------



## Jeromed

_



"there didn't *use*d to be"

Click to expand...

_As written above, it's common and correct in the US.

The BBC's Learning English site even gives examples of sentences with the expression (and no _d_ at the end of _use_)


----------



## par

thank you!! It helps me a lot but I don't understand why the verb _used_  is in the past tense if it is marked with the auxiliary verb _did._
For example, in the sentence _I didn't like that film_ like is in the infinitive form because the auxiliary verb is in the past (_did_), so I don't know why _used_ is still in the past tense.
Thanks in advance


----------



## Jeromed

par said:


> thank you!! It helps me a lot but I don't understand why the verb _used_ is in the past tense if it is marked with the auxiliary verb _did._


In the USA, it would be incorrect to write the verb in the past tense.  Only the auxiliary is inflected.


----------



## par

ok, I see...
so in British English the expression there didn't use to be is the correct one, isn't it.

Thank you


----------



## Jeromed

par said:


> ok, I see...
> so in British English the expression there didn't use to be is the correct one, isn't it.
> 
> Thank you


 
I have no idea.  *Audeman is stating the opposite*, but let's see if other Britons confirm what he says.  
The BBC definitely agrees with the American usage:  *No D at the end of USE.*


----------



## paper

I agree with Jeromed and the BBC. It's not an American/British thing, the use of "used" instead of "use" in that sentence is simply incorrect, although it's quite a common error made by native speakers, probably because in conversational English "use to" and "used to" sound almost indistinguishable.


----------



## Jeromed

paper said:


> I agree with Jeromed and the BBC. It's not an American/British thing, the use of "used" instead of "use" in that sentence is simply incorrect, although it's quite a common error made by native speakers, probably because in conversational English "use to" and "used to" sound almost indistinguishable.


----------



## paper

audeman said:


> _
> For example: "There used to be a shop on the corner selling sweets, now it sells computer games."
> _


"Used to" is correct in that sentence but not in the other one because of the negative auxiliary "didn't".


----------



## Alisterio

I agree with paper, when the auxiliary verb ("didn't") is in the past tense, the main verb ("use to") stays in the infinitive. So,

"There used to be a different currency in each of the countries of the EU."
but
"There didn't use to be a currency called the euro."

After all, you would never say "I used to lived in Scotland", with both verbs in the past...


----------



## Peigi Alba

This came up a couple of days ago with a Spanish friend I was talking to. I had to check it, but the correct expression is 'there didn't use to be'. However, in British English this sounds clumsy and 'used to' in the negative is rarely chosen by native speakers. Much easier to say 'there wasn't'.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Peigi Alba said:


> I had to check it, but the correct expression is 'there didn't use to be'


Shouldn't this be _There didn't used to be_?
It sounds just fine to me, and has a different meaning from _there wasn't, _but my compatriots don't always agree with me


----------



## gengo

Reina de la Aldea said:


> Shouldn't this be _There didn't used to be_?



No.  See the above posts discussing this.  In spoken form it is a moot point, since the D is virtually silent (it gets eaten by the T sound), but in writing there should be no D on "use."

Personally, I try to avoid this construction in writing because it sounds a bit awkward to me.  I would say, for example, "There used to be no shop here" or "This shop wasn't here before."


----------



## Agró

There *usedn't* to be...
Usedn't definición y significado | Diccionario Inglés Collins

Does anybody use this?


----------



## gengo

Agró said:


> There *usedn't* to be...
> 
> Does anybody use this?



I've never seen it, and can't believe any native speaker would think it is correct.


----------



## Galván

Agró said:


> There *usedn't* to be...
> Usedn't definición y significado | Diccionario Inglés Collins
> 
> Does anybody use this?


Never heard of it, and unrelated to _there didn't use to be._


----------



## gengo

Galván said:


> Never heard of it, and unrelated to _there didn't use to be._



It is very much related, although it sounds horrible to my American ear.

There didn't use to be = There used not to be (very formal, not common)

Therefore, at least in terms of meaning, "there usedn't to be" has exactly the same meaning.


----------



## Agró

Definition of USEDN'T

It looks chiefly British.


Galván said:


> Never heard of it, and unrelated to _there didn't use to be._


Why unrelated?


----------



## Galván

Agró said:


> Definition of USEDN'T
> 
> It looks chiefly British.
> 
> Why unrelated?


Because it's wrong.
From the link you shared: "By the way, usen't there to be a cab-yard just about here?"
Correct form: "By the way, didn't there use to be a cab-yard just about there?
Perhaps what they wanted to convey was "isn't there use to be a cab-yard.
I just think it adds more confusion to the original questions which is "didn't there use to be"


----------



## Bevj

'Usedn't' is not wrong.  It is very uncommon, even in BrE, but as gengo commented, it's 'used not', just as 'hadn't' is a contraction of 'had not'.


----------



## Galván

Bevj said:


> 'Usedn't' is not wrong.  It is very uncommon, even in BrE, but as gengo commented, it's 'used not', just as 'hadn't' is a contraction of 'had not'.


I understand the contraction usedn't  (used not) however the sound of usedn't is very close to isn't and if someone were to say it, probably you wouldn't know the difference.


----------



## Bevj

Sorry but 'usedn't' doesn't sound like 'isn't' at all. 
But as mentioned it's rather academic as _usedn't _is very rarely used.


----------



## Reina de la Aldea

Bevj said:


> _usedn't _is very rarely used.


At least it used to be


----------



## Galván

1) There used to be trees there, didn't there?
2) Didn't there used to be trees there? (colloquial)

English is my second language but I can see why both of these can be said interchangeably and wouldn't bother the ear of native speaker. The question is, is it correct in a formal setting? I personally would struggle deciding whether to write the past tense or the present tense. Based on what I ready from some of your responses, some of you believe it should written in present tense, some not. I would like to hear from other English speaking people to have a more broad understanding of this.


----------



## gengo

Galván said:


> 1) There used to be trees there, didn't there?
> 2) Didn't there used to be trees there? (colloquial)
> 
> The question is, is it correct in a formal setting?



#2 is wrong in AmEn, although I wouldn't be surprised to see it written that way by an American native speaker.  It's a fairly common mistake.

From the Internet:
The problem becomes a little trickier in constructions with _did_. The form considered correct following _did_, at least in American English, is _use to_. Just as we say "Did he want to?" instead of "Did he wanted to?," so we say "Did he use to?" instead of "Did he used to?" Here again, only in writing does the difference become an issue.

While in American English "did used to" is considered an error, such usage appears to have won some measure of acceptance in British English.

However, as I said above, for more formal situations it is best to use a different construction, such as "There used to be trees there, right?" or "If I'm not mistaken, there used to be trees there."  That is, it is preferable to avoid using "use(d) to" with "did."


----------



## Agró

1) Raymond Murphy, _English Grammar in Use_ (Cambridge University Press, 1985)

*UNIT 25 Used to (I used to do)*

c) The normal question form is *did ... use to...?*:
_- *Did *you *use to eat* a lot of sweets when you were a child?_
The negative form is *didn't use to ...* (_or _'used not to')
_- Jack *didn't use to go* out very often until he met Jill._

2) Michael Swan, _Practical English Usage _(OUP, 1980)

*used to* + infinitive *614*

_Used to_ can have the forms either of an auxiliary verb (questions and negatives without _do_) or of an ordinary verb (with _do_). The do-forms are more informal. (Note the special pronunciation of _use _and _used _in this structure: not /ju:z/, /ju:zd/, but /ju:s/, /ju:st/).
_*Did *you *use to play *cricket at school? _(Or: *Used you to play *_...?_)
_I *didn't use to like* opera, but now I'm getting interested. _(Or: _*I used not to like* ..._)
A contracted negative is possible: _I *usedn't* to like ..._

3) R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, _A University Grammar of English_ (Longman, 1973)

*The modal auxiliaries
3.21*
The modal auxaliaries are the following:

Non-negative/          Uncontracted negative/          Contracted negative
(...)
_used to/                   *used not to*/                          *usedn't to*_


----------

