# used to - origin



## CaptainJames

One etymological question that has nagged at me for years is the origin of "used to" as in "I used to go to church every Sunday" or in the more complex "I used to hate getting up early, but I am used to it now."

The way this phrase is used makes me wonder: was there ever a time -- either in English or in whatever language we absorbed "use" from -- when this might have been said in the present tense?  It clearly sounds like nonsense (to me, anyway) to say something like "I _use _to visit the wordreference.com forums" (ie to mean an act that I frequently do currently) ... and yet how on earth did English speakers of the past ever come to say "used to" without having first employed "use to" first?

Or might it have evolved not as a verb, but as an adjective?

When I think about the verb "use", I imagine that its very first meaning was employ/utilize, as in "I use the knife to cut things".  I have nothing to base this on; I'm only assuming this to be true because it seems the most basic, most concrete definition of the word.  If so, I can understand how people could eventually have said "Use me to help build your house", and thus "I am used to help build" and eventually "I am used to building things".  But I'm doing a lot of hypothesizing here ...

I would love to get others' input on this.


----------



## ancalimon

Here I think "use" didn't have the meaning of employ-utilize. It might be related to "becoming" the person that went to Church every Sunday.

I used to build things > I "was the one" who built things

I don't know much about this subject but what was it about Sir Williams Jones and Asmi, Asi, Asi, Asti in Latin and Sanskrit? As to me, it seems related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jones_(philologist)


----------



## grubble

Well in my understanding we still do say "use to"

_Did you use to go to church?
Yes I used to go to church._


It would not make sense to say "_Did you used to go to church_" because the auxiliary verb "to do" always takes the bare infinitive. ("Did you go?" not "Did you went?")


----------



## grubble

It occurs to me that the phrase is similar to "I am used to X" meaning I am accustomed to X.

Could it have developed something like the following?

*Hypothetical archaic*
_I am accustomed to going to church.
I am used to going to church.
I use to go to church_

*Hypothetical archaic and actual current usage*
_I was accustomed to going to church.
I was used to going to church.
I used to go to church_

This is guesswork but it seems plausible. Of course that still leaves the problem of the origin of the phrase "to be used to something"!

*NOTE I have added the above text in green to make my meaning clearer.*


----------



## grubble

Here is some evidence for a slightly different hypothesis
_*use* (n.) 
early 13c., from O.Fr. us, from L. usus "use, *custom*, skill, *habit*," from pp. stem of uti (see use (v.))._
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=use

I notice the words "custom" and "habit" which seem to link "accustom" and "have the habit of".

So:
_I have the habit of going to church.
I have the use of going to church.
I use to go to church._

All this is speculation of course.


----------



## CaptainJames

Very interesting, grubble.  Thanks for that link.

I must say, though, that from my understanding, "use to" as in "I use to go to church" is in fact a misspelling, akin to the dreadful "should of" as in "I should of had breakfast this morning".


----------



## Forero

I have run across (archaic) examples of _uses to_ (= accustoms oneself to) somewhere, Chaucer maybe, but you can probably find the whole history in the Oxford English Dictionary (which I wish I had).


----------



## CaptainJames

Forero said:


> I have run across (archaic) examples of _uses to_ (= accustoms oneself to) somewhere, Chaucer maybe, but you can probably find the whole history in the Oxford English Dictionary (which I wish I had).



Interestinger and interestinger ...


----------



## Welshie

grubble said:


> Well in my understanding we still do say "use to"
> 
> It would not make sense to say "_Did you used to go to church_" because the auxiliary verb "to do" always takes the bare infinitive. ("Did you go?" not "Did you went?")



"Did you used to go to church" sounds better to my ears that "Did you use to go". (Especially if the latter is pronounced with a 'z' sound). I would say "Did you used to go", although probably not in front of my mother !


----------



## CapnPrep

CaptainJames said:


> how on earth did English speakers of the  past ever come to say "used to" without having first employed "use to"  first?


The answer is that they _did_ first employ _use to_ in all the tenses, even though this sounds like nonsense to us today.



grubble said:


> I notice the words "custom" and "habit" which seem to link "accustom" and "have the habit of".


This is one of the senses found throughout this family of words (_usage_, _usual_,  etc.) and the verb itself had this meaning (19–21 of the OED entry). It  used to have transitive uses, with various prepositions: 


[1587] This man had accesse unto the queene to plaie at cards, and *to use hir with other courtlie pastimes*. ("to accustom her to other pastimes")
[a1826] She took my gay lord frae my side, And *used him in her company*. ("habituated him to her company")
[1814] He wanted *to use her by degrees to live without meat*.
It also had reflexive and intransitive uses:


[1753] We may *use ourselves to fear as well as to be bold*.
[1875] Die at good old age *as grand men use*. ("as they habitually do")
And finally the construction that we still know today (intransitive but with _to_-infinitive), and not only in the simple past tense:


[1612] Your silke-worme *useth to fast every third day*. ("usually fasts every third day")
[1670] The English then *useing to let grow on their upper-lip large Mustachio's*.
[1767] How *did we all use to admire her*!
 And here the OED includes a note: "In very frequent use from _c_ 1400, but now only in pa[st] tense *used to*, with pronunc[iation] (juːst tuː, ˈjuːstʊ), and _colloq._ in *did *(_*not*_)_* use *_(or_* used*_)_* to*_".



Welshie said:


> "Did you used to go to church" sounds better to  my ears that "Did you use to go".


The choice between _use to _and _used to_ after _did_ in modern English should be discussed in one of the many existing threads in English Only:
_>>   Topic summary: Negative forms of used to: Didn't use to/ didn't used  to/  used not to/ usedn't to/ usen't to/ never used to_


----------



## berndf

Welshie said:


> "Did you used to go to church" sounds better to my ears that "Did you use to go".


Are you really? I "I use*d t*o go to church" the "d" of "used" and the "t" of "to" are completely assimilated in colloquial speech. I don't think you could really tell whether you say
"Did you used to go to church" or
"Did you use to go to church".
Maybe because "use to" in "Did you use to go to church" sound exactly the same as "used to" in "I used to go to church", you think you say "Did you used to go to church" when infact you are saying "Did you use to go to church"? 
Just an idea...


----------



## CaptainJames

From one "Captain" to another, thank you CapnPrep for such a thorough answer! You have enlightened me.


----------



## CaptainJames

berndf said:


> Are you really? I "I use*d t*o go to church" the "d" of "used" and the "t" of "to" are completely assimilated in colloquial speech. I don't think you could really tell whether you say
> "Did you used to go to church" or
> "Did you use to go to church".



What I can tell you is that I was always taught that only "used to" is correct.  In fact, I'm not sure I _ever_ actually saw an example with "use to" until the rise of the internet and people's tendencies not to check the accuracy of their typing.

For me — and I think I would have all my past English teachers' support  — "use to" instead of "used to" is just as wrong as "should of" for "should have", "it's" for "its", or "loose" for "lose".  Even though the sound may be indistinguishable, "use to" is still wrong.  

I suppose that one of the points that others have revealed in this thread is that it has been a long time since "use to" was correctly used in a present tense; clearly, when people employ the phrase today ("I use to go to church") they are referring to the past, not something they are currently accustoming themselves to, and so are writing it incorrectly.

Now — that's not to say that, over time, such spellings will become so common as to be considered standard, or at least acceptable options (and this has happened throughout the history of the English language, and probably every other language at one time or another as well) — but for the moment, they're still officially wrong.


----------



## berndf

CaptainJames said:


> What I can tell you is that I was always taught that only "used to" is correct. In fact, I'm not sure I _ever_ actually saw an example with "use to" until the rise of the internet and people's tendencies not to check the accuracy of their typing.
> 
> For me — and I think I would have all my past English teachers' support  — "use to" instead of "used to" is just as wrong as "should of" for "should have", "it's" for "its", or "loose" for "lose". Even though the sound may be indistinguishable, "use to" is still wrong.
> 
> I suppose that one of the points that others have revealed in this thread is that it has been a long time since "use to" was correctly used in a present tense; clearly, when people employ the phrase today ("I use to go to church") they are referring to the past, not something they are currently accustoming themselves to, and so are writing it incorrectly.
> 
> Now — that's not to say that, over time, such spellings will become so common as to be considered standard, or at least acceptable options (and this has happened throughout the history of the English language, and probably every other language at one time or another as well) — but for the moment, they're still officially wrong.


If you follow this link


CapnPrep said:


> The choice between _use to _and _used to_ after _did_ in modern English should be discussed in one of the many existing threads in English Only:
> _>> Topic summary: Negative forms of used to: Didn't use to/ didn't used to/ used not to/ usedn't to/ usen't to/ never used to_


You will find that most grammar books agree that correct standard language is "used not to" and that "didn't use to" and "didn't used to" are colloquial variants. From a logical point of view, this is of course unsatisfactory because "used not to" and "not used to" are quite different things. But language isn't always logical.

If indeed "didn't use to" and "didn't used to" are colloquial only then my argument stands that it doesn't matter since the two variants are indistinguishable in rapidly spoken language.


----------



## CaptainJames

Hmmm ... well I must confess I'm not sure I've ever said "didn't used to" or "didn't use to"; on rare occasions I might say "never used to", but "didn't" sounds weird to me; perhaps it's a regional thing.

The references do make your point about "use to" having varying degrees of acceptability.  I guess for me it continues to feel wrong simply because it uses a present-tense form to express a past-tense idea. And since I don't remember ever seeing it prior to the internet (along with all the other examples of colloquial-gone-too-far English that abound here), I assumed it was just another misspelling.

Nevertheless, I will continue to use "used to", and continue to feel smug about it. 

But — lest we stray too far from the meat of this thread — what I'm learning about the word "use" seems to be suggesting that the meaning I would have taken as its standard, original meaning — to utilize, to employ, as in to use a tool — is in fact a later derivation, and that it originally meant to become familiar with or accustomed with.  

That's what I find fascinating.  It helps illustrate how English speakers in the past expressed themselves differently than we do today (much in the way that ideas are often expressed differently in different languages, like English's "having a headache" vs French's "having badness at the head"), and possibly actually thought differently (though I'll admit such differences are likely to be quite subtle).


----------



## Forero

berndf said:


> Are you really? I "I use*d t*o go to church" the "d" of "used" and the "t" of "to" are completely assimilated in colloquial speech. I don't think you could really tell whether you say
> "Did you used to go to church" or
> "Did you use to go to church".
> Maybe because "use to" in "Did you use to go to church" sound exactly the same as "used to" in "I used to go to church", you think you say "Did you used to go to church" when infact you are saying "Did you use to go to church"?
> Just an idea...


This depends on how fast one is speaking. I have heard "used to" and "didn't use to" with [zd t] and [z t], respectively. "Didn't used to" with [zd t] sounds wrong to me, but "didn't use to" with [z t] sounds OK.

I have also noticed that sometimes "used to" becomes an adverb, at least colloquially:

_I know he wears bluejeans now, but in those days he would always shine his shoes before he went out, and I never saw him without a necktie, used to.

_


----------



## berndf

CaptainJames said:


> Hmmm ... well I must confess I'm not sure I've ever said "didn't used to" or "didn't use to"; on rare occasions I might say "never used to", but "didn't" sounds weird to me; perhaps it's a regional thing.
> 
> The references do make your point about "use to" having varying degrees of acceptability. I guess for me it continues to feel wrong simply because it uses a present-tense form to express a past-tense idea. And since I don't remember ever seeing it prior to the internet (along with all the other examples of colloquial-gone-too-far English that abound here), I assumed it was just another misspelling.
> 
> Nevertheless, I will continue to use "used to", and continue to feel smug about it.
> 
> But — lest we stray too far from the meat of this thread — what I'm learning about the word "use" seems to be suggesting that the meaning I would have taken as its standard, original meaning — to utilize, to employ, as in to use a tool — is in fact a later derivation, and that it originally meant to become familiar with or accustomed with.
> 
> That's what I find fascinating. It helps illustrate how English speakers in the past expressed themselves differently than we do today (much in the way that ideas are often expressed differently in different languages, like English's "having a headache" vs French's "having badness at the head"), and possibly actually thought differently (though I'll admit such differences are likely to be quite subtle).


 
If you look at the various meanings of _usen_ in ME you see that the primary meaning has always been the modern one but it had serveral secondary meaning one of which was _to observe as a custom or tradition_ (sense 5). This sense today only exists in the past tense.

One last observation on "didn't use to": From a grammatical point of view, "use" is not present tense but infinitive which has no tense attached to it. The tense of the verbal phrase is provided by the finite verb _did_, i.e. past tense. But you certainly know all that.


----------



## CapnPrep

CaptainJames said:


> But — lest we stray too far from the meat of this thread — what I'm learning about the word "use" seems to be suggesting that the meaning I would have taken as its standard, original meaning — to utilize, to employ, as in to use a tool — is in fact a later derivation, and that it originally meant to become familiar with or accustomed with.


No, no, the meaning of "utilize, employ" is the basic sense of the verb (at least it was for Latin _uti_, which became Old French _user_, which was borrowed into English). It's true that, according to the OED, the very earliest attested examples of _use_ in English (13th century) correspond to the meaning "To celebrate, keep, or observe (a rite, custom, etc.); to pursue or follow as a custom or usage", but the more familiar meaning "To make use of (some immaterial thing) as a means or instrument" appeared soon afterwards, in the following century.

As I indicated in my previous message, the "make/become accustomed" meanings correspond to senses 19–21 (out of a total 25) for the verb _use_ in the OED, which is an indication that these are not really central/core senses of the word.


----------



## CaptainJames

@CapnPrep:  I guess I glossed over the "(19-21 OED)" in your post 

So the good news is that my original supposition was correct: that the original meaning of "use" was to utilize/employ.  The bad news is that I'm back to being bewildered as to how it evolved — or, more correctly, how English speakers came to utilize it — to express habit/custom.

If I "use" a knife, or "use" a tool, I'm not sure how I would then conceive of "using" a habit or ritual, ie performing or taking part in one.  Please don't misunderstand; if I sound as though I'm claiming such usage was wrong in some way, I'm not!  Obviously that's what people said.  I'm just trying to see things the way they might have, to appreciate whatever different meaning they must have ascribed to the word in order to use it in that way.  And of course none of you were living back in those times, so I understand there are limits to just how much can be explained.    But you never learn if you don't ask ...

[Side note:  It's darned near impossible to discuss the word "use" without using (there I go again) the word itself, isn't it?]


----------



## berndf

CaptainJames said:


> So the good news is that my original supposition was correct: that the original meaning of "use" was to utilize/employ. The bad news is that I'm back to being bewildered as to how it evolved — or, more correctly, how English speakers came to utilize it — to express habit/custom.


If you follow my link above, some of the ME quotations might give a hint. See e.g. in sense 5a (_to observe a custom, to act in accordance with a custom or tradition, etc._):
Quotation 2: _Kyssyng ... bicumes vche a kny3t þat cortaysy vses._
where knight _uses courtasy,_ i.e. _observes the custom of being courious; _or
Quotation 3: _We wil homward the same custome vse._
where we find straightaway _to use a custom_ meaning _to adhere to a custom_.


----------



## Forero

I have no trouble seeing the connection in meaning. If a word is actually used, as opposed to being in disuse, is it not _ipso facto_ usual? And isn't normal usage also usual usage?

(Don't try answering this without a _us-_ or two. )


----------



## koniecswiata

I'm not sure about Classical Latin, but I believe that Mideaval Church/Academic Latin used the word "usus" to mean habit or custom.  As said earlier, the English use of "used to" mirrors this use.  It may even be that English has preserved something that (other) Romance language have discontinued--if it is that they used this verb in this way.


----------



## CapnPrep

CaptainJames said:


> The bad news is that I'm back to being bewildered as to how it evolved — or, more correctly, how English speakers came to utilize it — to express habit/custom.


A good way to think about it may be to remember that the verb _use_ in this sense is not transitive in Latin or in French. You don't "use something", but you "use with something" or "by means of something". So the idea of instrumentality is encoded in the entire construction, while the verb _use _itself can in fact have a much broader meaning, something like "practice, perform, accomplish [what one aims to do]".  From here it is a short step to "practice/perform [some activity] repeatedly or habitually", which is what the verb means when used intransitively, in Latin, in earlier stages of French, or (as we have seen) in English.


----------



## koniecswiata

That's interesting what you say about the intrasitivity of "use" in French.  I really don't know French, but I know Spanish, and it is absolutely transitive in that language:  usar + direct object.  Also, it would be strange to just say "uso" (I use).  You'd have to say "lo uso" (I use it) at least.  I hope I am not going off topic!  But, we're definitely on the right track by connecting English "used to" with the ideas of "practice, perform, accomplish" in Latin.


----------



## grubble

CaptainJames said:


> Very interesting, grubble.  Thanks for that link.
> I must say, though, that from my understanding, "use to" as in "I use to go to church" is in fact a misspelling, akin to the dreadful "should of" as in "I should of had breakfast this morning".


CaptainJames - You are missing my point. My intention was to give a hypothesis about the origin of the phrase. When I posited "I use to go to church" I was referring to a possible archaic present tense usage. I made no claim that this is correct nowadays.

A. My hypothesis is that "I use to go to church" (archaic present tense) would have meant "I regularly go to church" in the present tense. (Whether there were churches in those days is another matter!).

B. My second point about "Did you use(d) to go to church" was a quite different one. In this case I am arguing that the memory of the present tense still exists in our language (regardless of how we spell it).

Let me explain carefully:

1. If I wish to ask someone if they used to do X, I have two choices. I can say "Used you to do X" or I can say "Did you use(d) to do X". Now I know of no-one (in Britain) who use the first of these. Without exception my friends and I would say "When you were young, did you use(d) to play on the swings?" We would not say "When you were young, used you to play on the swings?". Some people may use the latter, I don't know.

2. So, to my certain knowledge some people currently employ the phrase "Did you use(d) to X?" *Note:* This is a positive use and does not belong in the thread about negative usage that was mentioned by CapnPrep.

3. My point about this is that, regardless of current spelling, anyone who employs ""Did you use(d) to X?" is in fact  "remembering" the present tense usage. Here is why:

As berndf said 





> One last observation on "didn't use to": From a grammatical point of view, "use" is not present tense but infinitive which has no tense attached to it


. I made the same point about "Did you use(d) to in my original posts.



> The references do make your point about "use to" having varying degrees of acceptability. I guess for me it continues to feel wrong simply because it uses a present-tense form to express a past-tense idea.


That is exactly where you are wrong. If I say "Did you use to..." the past tense is provided by "did" and not by "use".

CaptainJames - Would you say "Did you went to the cinema..." because "went" is past tense? Would you say "Did you ate your breakfast" because "ate" is past tense? I assume not. Why then would you say "Did you used to..." because "used" is past tense?  Clearly everyday English usage  requires that "did" is never followed by a preterite.

For this reason I say that all your grammar teachers were mistaken if they insisted on it. Even if it has now become habitual to spell it as "used" (after *did*). I claim that that comes from a mistake at some time in the past by mis-hearing the sound of "use to" and spelling it "used to".

This is the exact opposite of your point about  "I should of". I say that "should of" is a mis-hearing of "should have" and that "Did you used" is a mis-hearing of the correct "Did you use".


----------



## CapnPrep

grubble said:


> 2. So, to my certain knowledge some people currently employ the phrase "Did you use(d) to X?" *Note:* This is a positive use and does not belong in the thread about negative usage that was mentioned by CapnPrep.


You will find, if you follow the links from that topic summary, or do a quick search, that positive uses of _use(d)_ to are also discussed in several existing threads:
*"did you use to"*
*He did <use to, used to> ...*
*Did she <use to, used to> swim?
*I hope you will agree that the presence of _not _has little to do with whether or not there should be a ‹d› in _used _in construction with _did_. And that given the pronunciation issue mentioned above by berndf (as well as in the aforementioned threads), this is more a question of spelling than of grammar. mplsray already cited the always reasonable MWDEU in this post, without giving the link, so here it is: used to, use to.

But my point was that this part of the discussion (concerning our preferences as native speakers for _used _vs _use_) is exclusively about modern English usage, and so does not really belong here in EHL, in my opinion. You may claim that speakers/writers are "remembering" the history of the language when they say _Did you use to go to church_, but do you have any evidence whatsoever to justify this claim? Why don't they remember it enough to say _*Do* you use to go to church?_


----------



## grubble

CapnPrep said:


> *A.* But my point was that this part of the discussion (concerning our preferences as native speakers for _used _vs _use_) is exclusively about modern English usage, and so does not really belong here in EHL, in my opinion. *B.* You may claim that speakers/writers are "remembering" the history of the language when they say _Did you use to go to church_, but do you have any evidence whatsoever to justify this claim?  *C.* Why don't they remember it enough to say _*Do* you use to go to church?_



*A.*I was merely trying to answer the following question as posed by the OP. 


> One etymological question that has nagged at me for years is the origin of "used to" as in "I used to go to church every Sunday" ...
> The way this phrase is used makes me wonder: *was there ever a time... when this might have been said in the present tense*?


My point is that, if we can make a case for "use to" being valid nowadays, this suggests a continuity with past usage. That would not be the case if we insist that a ubiquitous employment of "used" by present day grammarians somehow proves that the present tense never existed.


*B.*I did not make a claim. If you read my posts you will see that all through I have spoken of guesswork or hypothesis. A hypothesis by definition does not require evidence; it is merely a starting point based on supposition and may subsequently be proved or disproved. However I do have some leverage provided I can persuade people of the logic of the grammar referred to in *A* above.


*C.*My hypothesis about this is that the similarity in sound between present and preterite _(use to_ and _used to_) made the expression ambiguous in spoken communication and one of them had to die out. It so happened that the present tense was the loser. However, I think that it _has_ survived in a way.  Instead of saying "I use to go to church" we now say "I usually go to church. The verb has become an adverb and thus solves the problem of aural ambiguity.


----------



## CaptainJames

Well — I must say that I'm finally beginning to sort all this out in my head, thanks to everyone's patient efforts. 

I think I got a bit distracted by the side-topic of "did you use to" vs "did you use to".  Of course berndf and grubble are correct about the "did" already representing the past tense, and that "use" is really infinitive.  However this wasn't in my original query; I was curious about "I used to do something" vs "I use to do something".  

The "did" question had never actually occurred to me. In fact, I'm honestly not sure which of the following I would have written:

Did you ever *use *to go to church?
Did you ever *used *to go to church?

Frankly I think I would have been unsure enough to have sidestepped the issue completely with something like, "Was there ever a time when you went to church regularly?"

But the biggest eye-opener was CapnPrep's pointing out of the intransitive origins of use.  I'll still have to mull things over awhile, but I feel the glimmer of an "Aha!  I understand now!" moment in my future.


----------



## berndf

CaptainJames said:


> But the biggest eye-opener was CapnPrep's pointing out of the intransitive origins of use.  I'll still have to mull things over awhile, but I feel the glimmer of an "Aha!  I understand now!" moment in my future.


Just to be sure there is no misunderstanding. In Latin and Old French the verb *also* had intransitive uses. CapnPrep never said it was its original meaning and use.


----------



## Earle the Viking

Brother, how are you? I´m originally from Canada, too from Ontario as a matter of fact. I have an eke that I would like to further upon all of this.. my friend.. I´m a-learning Danish, Old English, Icelandic and Faroese at this time which are all the languages that are philologically brother and mother languages of


I am used to do-ing that... now look at .... I used to call her....Ég notadi til ad kalla hana which in turn is the same living viking word note for use and is simply put like this... I noted to (at) call her. so I don´t know if this will enlighten you as much as it has to me.. but I know that it should to show us that English isn´t alone out here brother... this is our vking way to speak and if we want to be more original we ought to say.. I´m noted to people acting like that. Or I noted to speak with people so...! God bless you Brother and write back what you think!
Earle the Viking


----------



## francisgranada

grubble said:


> ...My point is that, if we can make a case for "use to" being valid nowadays, this suggests a continuity with past usage. That would not be the case if we insist that a ubiquitous employment of "used" by present day grammarians somehow proves that the present tense never existed.


Or in other words,_ used to_ expresses that something is done repeatedly, which cannot be accompished_ right no_w (in the very present). 

Fo curiosity, the corresponding Hungarian verb is _szokni _(_to accostum_, _habituate_, ... also Spanish _soler_). In the sense of "one used to do something" in Hungarian this verb is also used in past tense even if  speaking about the "present". E.g. _szokott menni_ - _he used to go_ (_szokott _- past tense from _szokni_, _menni _- to go).


----------



## Forero

francisgranada said:


> Or in other words,_ used to_ expresses that something is done repeatedly, which cannot be accompished_ right no_w (in the very present).
> 
> Fo curiosity, the corresponding Hungarian verb is _szokni _(_to accostum_, _habituate_, ... also Spanish _soler_). In the sense of "one used to do something" in Hungarian this verb is also used in past tense even if  speaking about the "present". E.g. _szokott menni_ - _he used to go_ (_szokott _- past tense from _szokni_, _menni _- to go).


"Used to" and earlier "use(s) to" do not really include the idea of repetition, only the idea of custom or mindset.


----------



## merquiades

Before reading this thread I thought "use to" worked like any other verb for everyone.

Did you use to smoke?
I used to smoke
I never used to smoke
I did use to smoke
I didn't use to smoke

The d being added when an auxiliary is not present, like with any verb.

I wouldn't use this structure in the present *Do you use to.... I use to,  but I would substitute a passive structure "to be used to" with the same meaning.

Are you used to smoking at home?
I'm used to smoking with friends
I'm not used to smoking anywhere.
I've never been used to smoking indoors.
Here there would always be a -d as used is as a participle/adjective


----------



## francisgranada

Forero said:


> "Used to" and earlier "use(s) to" do not really include the idea of repetition, only the idea of custom or mindset.


This is essentially true also for Hungarian, but from the practical point of view a custom includes some kind of repetition. It is surely neither an "action" that can happen nor a "mindset (or whatever)" that can be acquired in a moment or "right now". However, what I wanted to say in my pervious post is that both Hungarian and English seem to apply the same logic independently, when using the past tense instead of the present in this case.


----------



## Forero

francisgranada said:


> This is essentially true also for Hungarian, but from the practical point of view a custom includes some kind of repetition. It is surely neither an "action" that can happen nor a "mindset (or whatever)" that can be acquired in a moment or "right now". However, what I wanted to say in my pervious post is that both Hungarian and English seem to apply the same logic independently, when using the past tense instead of the present in this case.


Actually, I am afraid my terms "custom" and "mindset" do not do justice to "used to" either.

If a person with white hair says "I used to have red hair", that does not suggest repetition. The person was probably born with no hair, or very blond hair, and acquired "red" hair early on and white hair when they got old enough. A person might dye their hair repetitively, but "I used to have red hair" does not imply that. However, I would say "I used to dye my hair red" does imply repetition.

Something like "My grandmother used to have us over for Thanksgiving dinner" carries the idea of repetition, but that is because Thanksgiving dinner customarily repeats every year.

Similarly, "I used to love my family" does not suggest repetition, but "I used to love to sit by the fire and read" does.

"I used to go to church" implies repetition because "go" evokes the idea of a momentary action, and a customary momentary action is a repetition.

Another interesting example:

A. _Does Jane have a ponytail?_
B. _I don't know for sure since I haven't seen her in years, but she always used to._

In this context "she always used to" is not suggestive of repetition, but "she always did" might be. Note that neither one tells us whether she still does. If "always" includes a time when she was middle aged, I would assume she does; if speaker B is referring only to her childhood, she likely doesn't but she might.


----------



## CapnPrep

merquiades said:


> I wouldn't use this structure in the present *Do you use to.... I use to,  but I would substitute a passive structure "to be used to" with the same meaning.


It's not the same meaning, if you take examples like Forero's: The present tense of _I used to love my family, I used to have red hair_ is not _I am used to loving my family, to having red hair_. I would say that the present tense is just _I love my family, I have red hair_.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

koniecswiata said:


> That's interesting what you say about the intrasitivity of "use" in French.  I really don't know French, but I know Spanish, and it is absolutely transitive in that language:  usar + direct object.  Also, it would be strange to just say "uso" (I use).  You'd have to say "lo uso" (I use it) at least.  I hope I am not going off topic!  But, we're definitely on the right track by connecting English "used to" with the ideas of "practice, perform, accomplish" in Latin.



French doesn't have a verb with the meaning of the English "use to" (in its modern use in the past tense). You have to express this concept eiither with "avoir l'habitude de faire qc" or with the adverbial qualification "d'habitude" (~usually), which is usually placed at the beginning of the sentence and separated by a comma.
Spanish & Catalan have the defective verb "solere", used only in Present and Imperfect, and Italian has "solere", also limited to Present & Imperfect, and the somewhat literary construction "essere solito (di) fare qualcosa", which isn't impersonal, but must have an explicit subject (a person, an animal etc.).
Portuguese has "costumar +inf." with the same meaning. Don't know whether it's limited only to Present & Imperfect or does indeed work with all tenses.


----------



## learnerr

Forero said:


> If a person with white hair says "I used to have red hair", that does not suggest repetition.


Why? On August 18, 1924, I had red hair. On August 19 same year, I had red hair again. On August 20, all the same (I didn't go anywhere to change the colour of my hair). If this is not repetition, then what is?


----------



## Forero

learnerr said:


> Why? On August 18, 1924, I had red hair. On August 19 same year, I had red hair again. On August 20, all the same (I didn't go anywhere to change the colour of my hair). If this is not repetition, then what is?


If you had red hair, then you didn't have red hair, and then you had red hair a second time, that second time is a repetition. But having red hair yesterday of itself does not make still having red hair today a repetition.


----------



## learnerr

Forero said:


> But having red hair yesterday of itself does not make still having red hair today a repetition.


This just depends on terms, and I think francisgranada meant the same thing that I did. What matters is what people are made to think of a situation they're observing, and in this case the thought turns to be the same today as yesterday: I have red hair. The thought was repeated. This may be especially well felt if both events are similar in the sense that both refer to the past, rather than one is in the past (not actual), and the other refers to the present (actual, therefore dealt with differently).


----------



## Chasint

Go back far enough and you find* "use to"* in the *present tense*.

And also such feestes as wherein the Kings Judges at Westminster-hall *do not use to *sytte in Judgment
*Articles to be Enquired in the Visitation in the First Year of the Reign of Our Most Dread Soveraign Lady Elizabeth, by the Grace of God, of England, France, and Irland, Queen, Defender of the Faith

* 
_*Pierce Penilesse His Svpplication to the Diuell By Thomas Nash*_
_Marry, *he doth not **use to* weare a night-cap, for his hornes will not let him; and yet I knowe a hundred, as well headed as he, that will make a jolly shift with a court cup on their crownes_
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...D4Dg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="use to"&f=false

There are plenty more examples.


----------



## Chasint

...and here is* "uses to" *which I don't think anyone can deny is present tense.

_If you would walk with another you must know where his goings are, observe where *he uses to walk*, and be going there. _
*Two treatises: The first, Of earthly-mindedness The second treatise ...*
By Jeremiah Burroughs
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="he uses to"&f=false


For he is Very ambitious of the Service of these Men, and winks at many of - - their failings, more than *he uses to do* towards his Natural Subjects. 
*An Historical Relation of the Island Ceylon in the East-Indies. - London ...*
By Robert Knox
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="he uses to"&f=false

______________________________________________________________________
...and here -_ useth to_

For the man whom the king delighteth to honour, let the royal apparel be brought which the king *useth to wear*, and the horse that the king rideth upon
The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments and the Apocrypha ...
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q="useth to"&f=false


----------

