# usedn't



## Thomas1

hi  
Recently we've had quite a big dispute on mayn't on the forum, I recalled of "usedn't" which is I think even rarer than mayn't. Do any of you encounter it???
And which form of negative is most frequently used/do you use:

used not to
did not/didn't use to
did not/didn't used to ???
Thanks for all your answers 
Thomas


----------



## languageGuy

I think this is wrong. Contractions are made with helping verbs, and "use" is not a helping verb.

All the negative expression you listed with "use" sound akward to me.  I think there  is a word missing.

"He's used to going home at 5"  --> "He isn't used to going home at 5"


----------



## Thomas1

languageGuy said:
			
		

> This is wrong. Contractions are made with helping verbs, and "use" is not a helping verb. Maybe you were thinking "wasn't".


 
hi languageGuy
I did mean "usedn't to"; "used to" is a semi modal so the contraction can be formed this way, even though I saw it only in few sources but it is really correct

take a look at this
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0082988.html

waitng for comments


----------



## Thomas1

languageGuy said:
			
		

> I think this is wrong. Contractions are made with helping verbs, and "use" is not a helping verb.
> 
> All the negative expression you listed with "use" sound akward to me. I think there is a word missing.
> 
> "He's used to going home at 5" --> "He isn't used to going home at 5"


 
eg
_I used not/usedn't/didn't used to go._
_When I was a child, we used to go to Scarborough for our holidays_.

I think in this case we can use "wouldn't" as a synonim


----------



## modgirl

I have never heard *usedn't* in my life.  I'm also a bit shocked to see it on that website!  I'm no expert, but I can guarantee it is not common usage in the United States.  How on earth would it be pronounced?  My sincere advice is to stay completely away from it.  I looked at that website a bit, and I'm completely unimpressed.  I personally would not trust it for information.


----------



## Becky85

I too have never heard that word used. I would agree, don't use it!


----------



## languageGuy

Well, we don't use that expression here.  I would still call it wrong, but I would avoid contractions with any semi modal verbs.  I think your URL offers the best advice -- use "never".

"He used to snore."  or "He never used to snore."


----------



## Axl

*Usedn't* is not a legitimate contraction.  The website is wrong.  I would be very careful about trusting the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia as an authority on language henceforth!

Axl.


----------



## languageGuy

I checked with the OED, and "usen't" is listed there, along with "useter."  

But I would still avoid it.


----------



## Becky85

That is surprising!


----------



## Thomas1

Axl said:
			
		

> *Usedn't* is not a legitimate contraction. The website is wrong. I would be very careful about trusting the Hutchinson Encyclopedia as an authority on language henceforth!
> 
> Axl.


I wouldn't say it's not a legitimete as not only does the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia give this contraction, there are more sources where you can find it in, eg "A Prcticall English Grammar" by A.J. Thomson & A.V. Martinet.
 even though I agree -> never use *usedn't* *, *me think it's even worse than mayn't

do you (all of you) use 
*didn't use to* or *didn't used to* ?

ps: sometimes grammar makes awkward "creatures"


----------



## Thomas1

Becky85 said:
			
		

> That is surprising!


Language is alive and sometimes even strange, that's why it keeps on surprising us - me think


----------



## Becky85

Thomas1 said:
			
		

> do you (all of you) use
> *didn't use to* or *didn't used to* ?



I think that although you pronounce it '*didn't use to*', you must write '*didn't used to*'. I definitely use it.

Eg.* I use it now, but I didn't used to.*


----------



## Thomas1

do you think it's a grammatically corect form *didn't used to *?


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum

Use'n't was quite popular when I was a child and used regularly in Gunnedah NSW in the years immediately following 1957.

I have not before seen it in print.  When spoken the d was dropped.  It meant shouldn't and we propably should have used shouldn't but we didn't care so we used to say use'n't at will.

I think it pleased us that it displeased proper speakers.

I would have not thought that the OED remembered my childhood.  Are words the most quaint possessions we possess?

See you later

Robert


----------



## Thomas1

how nice first person who knows usedn't 
i saw your version too but written as usen't


> Are words the most quaint possessions we possess?


is there sth that can be quainter??? 

Regards,
Thomas


----------



## Becky85

Thomas1 said:
			
		

> do you think it's a grammatically corect form *didn't used to *?



i would say so but others may disagree?


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi all,

The OED has many very, very, obscure and rarely used words. I think it is more like a museum than a usage guide. Usedn't isn't correct. I doubt that there will be any controversy about this. The problem with mightn't was that it IS actually used in some places but not in others. 

Susan


----------



## Thomas1

Becky85 said:
			
		

> i would say so but others may disagree?


my opinion:
it's acceptable in everyday speech, even though it's grammatically incorrect ; what would others say???



			
				suzzzenn said:
			
		

> The OED has many very, very, obscure and rarely used words. I think it is more like a museum than a usage guide. Usedn't isn't correct.


It doesn't mean that "usedn't" is not correct


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum
I'm very new at this and I hope I am not off thread but...

I saw an interview with a very senior person at the OED who stated that once a word is in the OED that's it.  It stays in and is kept as an historical record of the language.

Robert


----------



## lsp

Becky85 said:
			
		

> I think that although you pronounce it '*didn't use to*', you must write '*didn't used to*'. I definitely use it.
> 
> Eg.* I use it now, but I didn't used to.*


I vote for "didn't use to," as in this example:

I now like to eat vegetables; as a child I didn't use to like them.


----------



## suzzzenn

Do you think it's a grammatically correct form, *didn't used to *?



Didn't used to is incorrect if you are taking a grammar test or doing any formal writing.

 I used to go to the movies every Friday. 
 I didn't use to care!
 I didn't used to care!

As a NewYorker, I don't pronounce the "d" at the end of the word anyway so it's a moot point when I speak. When I write, I follow the rules. 

Susan


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day Suzzzenn
Such word construction in a grammer test would most certainly skew the results with my suspicion that those familiar with formal English would consider all examples to be incorrect even though the terminology is in colloquial use.

I suspect further that while it may be a comfortable verbal pattern it appears clunky on the page and would probably be avoided.

Robert


----------



## languageGuy

This is how I see it from a techinical prespective.

"used to" should never be used with "do, does, or did." All usage of this type, though some are very comon, are incorrect.

"used to" should always be spelled with the 'd'.

"used to" should only be used with forms of "to be".

"I was used to going to the movies every Friday."

"I wasn't used to caring."

"Now I like vegetables, but I wasn't used to them as a child."

"I use it now, but I am not used to it."


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum

From a technical viewpoint I would not use any of them and construct my sentence lucidly with alternate words
See you later

Robert


----------



## mjscott

languageGuy-
You are right on....

I used to like milk, but have acquired an allergy to it.
You used to snore in your sleep.
He used to live in NYC, but now he lives in Boston.
We used to sleep out under the stars.
You used to cheer when our team made a basket.
They used to dance when others used to cry.


----------



## Thomas1

languageGuy said:
			
		

> This is how I see it from a techinical prespective.
> 
> "used to" should never be used with "do, does, or did." All usage of this type, though some are very comon, are incorrect.
> 
> "used to" should always be spelled with the 'd'.
> 
> "used to" should only be used with forms of "to be".


 
Hi languageGuy
you're prfectly right on half of what you wrote but not with the thing I meant, this is how I see it from grammar point of view:
used to is both an adjective and a (semi)modal

*be/get used to doing sth/sth *and it means that you are accustomed to or you are at home with doing sth/sth, here it's always followed by gerund/noun:
_I do the dishes every day, so I'm used to it. _
_I can't get used to the idea that you're grown up now._

*used to do sth* means that you would do sth in the past but you stopped it and don't do it any more, here it's always followed by an infinitive and it has no present form:
_He used to go to our school. _
_We're eating out more often than we used to._
now the question of negatives and interrogatives of 'used to':

negatives:
*used not to/usedn't*(this one is quite uncommon but gramatically correct)
_She usedn't to like Tom but she quite likes him now._
*did not use to/didn't use to*
_You didn't use to eat chips when you were younger._

interrogatives:
*used you/they/etc to...?*(this one is quite uncommon but gramatically correct)
*did you use to ....?*
_Did you use to go to church regularly?_

negative interrogative:
*used they not to...?* or *usedn't you to..?* (these ones are quite uncommon but gramatically correct)
_Used he not to do the shopping each Monday?_
*did you not use to...?*
*didn't you use to...?*
_Did this building use to be a hotel? _
_Where did you use to live before you came to Manchester?_

I hope I didn't make any mistake and got my point across well , any comments on that would be greatly appreciated

Regards,
Thomas


----------



## Becky85

languageGuy said:
			
		

> This is how I see it from a techinical prespective.
> 
> "used to" should never be used with "do, does, or did." All usage of this type, though some are very comon, are incorrect.



Just wondering what your source is for this, as I've been saying and writing the phrase '*I didn't used to*' for as long as I can remember! Pronounced '*I didn't use to*' (without the '*d*' on use). 

I thought you could use both '*I didn't used to*' and '*I didn't use to*' although in writing I prefer '*I didn't used to*'. 

Others seem to agree!

Here is one of my sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv285.shtml
(a BBC website!)


----------



## languageGuy

Thomas1 said:
			
		

> Hi languageGuy
> *used to do sth* means that you would do sth in the past but you stopped it and don't do it any more, here it's always followed by an infinitive and it has no present form:
> _He used to go to our school. _
> _We're eating out more often than we used to._
> Thomas


 

He was used to going to our school.
We're eating out more often than we are used to.


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day languageGuy

Thank you.  I was aware that the usage had become somewhat convoluted over the years and you have introduced lucidity to miasmatic conflabulation.

Robert


----------



## languageGuy

Becky85 said:
			
		

> Just wondering what your source is for this, as I've been saying and writing the phrase '*I didn't used to*' for as long as I can remember! Pronounced '*I didn't use to*' (without the '*d*' on use).
> 
> I thought you could use both '*I didn't used to*' and '*I didn't use to*' although in writing I prefer '*I didn't used to*'.
> 
> Others seem to agree!


 
My source on this is me.  I am not trying to say people don't say this.  I think it is common.  Maybe being common makes it correct, but that would make a lot of contraction and slang correct also.   If you make the BBC the offical keeper of correct English, then I guess it is correct.  If you make me the offical keeper   it is wrong, but still comon.

Consider  "used to"  and "inured to."  

1. "I am used to doing my chores."    --   "I am inured to doing my chores."
2. "I was used to doing my chores."   --  "I was inured to doing my chores."
3. "I didn't used to do my chores"      --  "I didn't inured to do my chores."

To me, from a grammatical standpoint, #3 seems wrong.

What do you think?


----------



## Becky85

languageGuy said:
			
		

> He was used to going to our school.
> We're eating out more often than we are used to.



Changing '*He used to go to our school*' to '*He was used to going to our school*' changes the meaning of the sentence. 

*He used to go to our school* = *He once attended our school*

*He was used to going to our school *= *He had become used to it, he had become settled with the idea of going to our school, going to our school had become a familiar thing for him.*


----------



## Becky85

languageGuy said:
			
		

> My source on this is me.  I am not trying to say people don't say this.  I think it is common.  Maybe being common makes it correct, but that would make a lot of contraction and slang correct also.   If you make the BBC the offical keeper of correct English, then I guess it is correct.  If you make me the offical keeper   it is wrong, but still comon.
> 
> Consider  "used to"  and "inured to."
> 
> 1. "I am used to doing my chores."    --   "I am inured to doing my chores."
> 2. "I was used to doing my chores."   --  "I was inured to doing my chores."
> 3. "I didn't used to do my chores"      --  "I didn't inured to do my chores."
> 
> To me, from a grammatical standpoint, #3 seems wrong.
> 
> What do you think?



But the word '*inured*' and the phrase '*didn't used*' aren't necessarily interchangeable as you seem to be suggesting here? I still think that the sentences 1 - 3 here, on the left hand-side, are all correct!


----------



## Robert Bennie

G'day forum

Are the wording and phrasing of used as detailed in this post commonly written or are the examples mainly spoken?


----------



## languageGuy

Becky85 said:
			
		

> Changing '*He used to go to our school*' to '*He was used to going to our school*' changes the meaning of the sentence.
> 
> *He used to go to our school* = *He once attended our school*
> 
> *He was used to going to our school *= *He had become used to it, he had become settled with the idea of going to our school, going to our school had become a familiar thing for him.*


 
Any usage of "used to" that does not reflect usual behavior is definately wrong. That is where the word comes from.

These given exaples are equivalent. If you mean he attended once and was never settled with the idea, you must say he attended once, and you may not say "used to." If "he used to go," he by definition was used to it.


----------



## Becky85

We'll have to agree to disagree then! I've provided a source to support my argument and you've given yourself as a source...I'm sorry but I'm going to stick to what I think here!


----------



## languageGuy

Becky85 said:
			
		

> We'll have to agree to disagree then! I've provided a source to support my argument and you've given yourself as a source...I'm sorry but I'm going to stick to what I think here!


 
I certainly do not want you to change! If we agreed, how could we continue to argue? Stick to what you believe. 

Do you know of any other constructions where double past tense is used? This is what bothers me most about "I didn't used to." Both "to do" and "to use" are in the past tense. It is certainly acceptable with "to be," (I was used to.) but with "do"?


----------



## Thomas1

> Originally Posted by *Thomas1*
> _Hi languageGuy_
> _*used to do sth* means that you would do sth in the past but you stopped it and don't do it any more, here it's always followed by an infinitive and it has no present form:_
> _He used to go to our school.
> We're eating out more often than we used to.
> Thomas_
> 
> 
> 
> languageGuy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was used to going to our school.
> We're eating out more often than we are used to.
Click to expand...

 
1st one impies that he was acustomed to going to the school but you don't know if he attended classes or just came there eg for fun and he was accustomed to the act of going there with my sentence it's clear that he attended classes
2nd we are eating out more often than we would do so in the past, your sentence gives in impression that they're eating out more often than they are accustomed to doing it and maybe it's too often for them

In my opinion you do not differentiate between 'used to' as an adjective and 'used to' as a (semi)modal and here lies the problem as these are two different things


			
				languageGuy said:
			
		

> "used to" should never be used with "do, does, or did." All usage of this type, though some are very comon, are incorrect.
> 
> "used to" should only be used with forms of "to be".


that's not true-any sources/proofs???




			
				languageGuy said:
			
		

> "I wasn't used to ca*r*ring."


I didn't use to carry
Would you say the above sentences have the same meaning??


----------



## Becky85

languageGuy said:
			
		

> I certainly do not want you to change! If we agreed, how could we continue to argue? Stick to what you believe.
> 
> Do you know of any other constructions where double past tense is used? This is what bothers me most about "I didn't used to." Both "to do" and "to use" are in the past tense. It is certainly acceptable with "to be," (I was used to.) but with "do"?



Just noticed this before I go to bed! I'll sleep on it and let you know tomorrow! Language is many a splendid thing, eh?!


----------



## Thomas1

languageGuy said:
			
		

> My source on this is me. I am not trying to say people don't say this. I think it is common. Maybe being common makes it correct, but that would make a lot of contraction and slang correct also. If you make the BBC the offical keeper of correct English, then I guess it is correct. If you make me the offical keeper  it is wrong, but still comon.
> 
> Consider "used to" and "inured to."
> 
> 1. "I am used to doing my chores." -- "I am inured to doing my chores."
> 2. "I was used to doing my chores." -- "I was inured to doing my chores."
> 3. "I didn't used to do my chores" -- "I didn't inured to do my chores."
> 
> To me, from a grammatical standpoint, #3 seems wrong.
> 
> What do you think?


Well it's a kind of bigheaded of you.That's not being common makes (semi)modal 'used to' correct, these are strict grammar rulesit's not only BBC where you can find 'used to' as a modal, I gave one source-here's one more:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?dict=B&searchword=used

as far as 'didn't used to' is concerned I'd say it's not gramatically correct even though acceptable in everyday language-here I agreee with languageGuy 
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=87518&dict=CALD

Regards, 
Thomas


----------



## languageGuy

Thomas1 said:
			
		

> Well it's a kind of bigheaded of you.That's not being common makes (semi)modal 'used to' correct, these are strict grammar rulesit's not only BBC where you can find 'used to' as a modal, I gave one source-here's one more:
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?dict=B&searchword=used
> 
> as far as 'didn't used to' is concerned I'd say it's not gramatically correct even though acceptable in everyday language-here I agreee with languageGuy
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=87518&dict=CALD
> 
> Regards,
> Thomas


I am sure there are many examples out there. But I still disagree.  Dictionaries are terrible sources for grammar. Their job is to explain what people mean when they use these terms, even if the use is incorrect.

It is only because I am using the strictest grammar standards that I would disallow some uses of "used to," in partcular any form that used with "to do."


----------



## mirandolina

I've definitely heard it and seen it before. 
We didn't use to go is correct, not we didn't used to go.
That would be like saying "we didn't wanted to go" instead of "we didn't want to go"


----------



## jacinta

mirandolina said:
			
		

> I've definitely heard it and seen it before.
> We didn't use to go is correct, not we didn't used to go.
> That would be like saying "we didn't wanted to go" instead of "we didn't want to go"



Yes.  This is correct.  I don't see the point in arguing here.  Shall we call it a day?


----------



## Thomas1

languageGuy said:
			
		

> I am sure there are many examples out there. But I still disagree. Dictionaries are terrible sources for grammar. Their job is to explain what people mean when they use these terms, even if the use is incorrect.


oh come on... earlier I gave you a book (a great book in my modest opinion), in this case the dictionary is not wrong besides it's not made by fledgelings but by professionals, is it??? If there's a need they explain gramar as well (just cases that make problems )


			
				languageGuy said:
			
		

> My source on this is me.


Were you born with it?? 



			
				languageGuy said:
			
		

> It is only because I am using the strictest grammar standards that I would disallow some uses of "used to," in partcular any form that used with "to do."


you don't want to stop language development, do you?? 

Cheers,
Thomas


----------



## mirandolina

I only discovered this thread now and didn't notice there were already 4-5 pages!
Still, I do think I have as much right as anyone else to make my small contribution...




			
				jacinta said:
			
		

> Yes. This is correct. I don't see the point in arguing here. Shall we call it a day?


----------



## lsp

Becky85 said:
			
		

> Just wondering what your source is for this, as I've been saying and writing the phrase '*I didn't used to*' for as long as I can remember! Pronounced '*I didn't use to*' (without the '*d*' on use).
> 
> I thought you could use both '*I didn't used to*' and '*I didn't use to*' although in writing I prefer '*I didn't used to*'.
> 
> Others seem to agree!
> 
> Here is one of my sources:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv285.shtml
> (a BBC website!)


Becky85, I don't think others agree _completely_. I skimmed back and my overall impression is that people agree with you that we say "didn't use to" but don't agree on the "didn't use*d* to" option. 

Mirandolina made a valuable and original point on this topic when she said, "That would be like saying 'we didn't wanted to go' instead of 'we didn't want to go'"


----------



## jacinta

mirandolina said:
			
		

> I only discovered this thread now and didn't notice there were already 4-5 pages!
> Still, I do think I have as much right as anyone else to make my small contribution...


No, I'm sorry, mirandolina.  You misunderstood my post.  I was using your answer to finalize things here.  I wasn't saying anything against you at all.  I was agreeing with you


----------



## gaer

Pardon me if this has already been clearly mentioned, but I don't think anyone explained this pattern in detail. Did adds a present tense verb, even if it is negated:

I didn't know
I didn't understand
I didn't think
I didn't realize
I didn't see

Using this pattern, it is logical that it would be:

I didn't use…

The problem, as I see it, is that if an extra letter is added (I didn't used), there is only a change in spelling, not pronunciation.

I think all of us have trouble writing this, or may feel unsure, because the construction itself is illogical. Most of us, I think use it. But it is one of those strange word combinations in English that tends to look more and more strange as you look at it and try to figure out how it logically came to be.

Gaer


----------



## Thomas1

mirandolina said:
			
		

> I've definitely heard it and seen it before.
> We didn't use to go is correct, not we didn't used to go.
> That would be like saying "we didn't wanted to go" instead of "we didn't want to go"





			
				lsp said:
			
		

> Becky85, I don't think others agree _completely_. I skimmed back and my overall impression is that people agree with you that we say "didn't use to" but don't agree on the "didn't use*d* to" option.
> 
> Mirandolina made a valuable and original point on this topic when she said, "That would be like saying 'we didn't wanted to go' instead of 'we didn't want to go'"


I think I discovered the problem
"used to" is a modal or as some claim semimodal, so its spelling shouldn't be changed that's why Becky I think says it is right to write _I didn't used to_ and it's given in Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary as a nonstandard spelling, in fact it's awkward to use past tense after auxiliary _did_ and i'll stick to using _didn't use to_


> NOT STANDARD He did used to work there, didn't he?


as far as pronounciation is concerned it's very probable that people pronounce _didn't used to _as _didn't use to_ because they subconciously know it's incorrect to use past tense after auxiliary _did_
me think that's the point here and what do you think???

I hope i didn't make it even more tangled

Regards,
Thomas


----------



## djdaragh

I used usedn't regularly as a child growing up in Ireland and still do today. It is perfectly correct English. I'm afraid the fact that it appears in Oxford English Dictionary completely puts to bed any argument or opinion by anyone that it is not legitimate English.   
 
However, my advice for learners of English is that it should be avoided for the very controversy it is causing in this forum. It is better to avoid arguments and to say for example, "he never used to snore" instead of the lovely but antiquated "he usedn't to snore"
 
It is antiquated and its use these days is not general and in my opinion it appears to be isolated to regions. It is certainly common in the north west of Ireland. It’s not a good enough reason to argue that the word is illegitimate just because it is rarely used and you don't like the sound of it. If we take these things to far we’ll end up burning Shakespeare and his books usedn’t to be so old fashioned. 

D x


----------



## BODYholic

'Used to' is a *single* English expression and it is used as "a package". Hence, it is incorrect to say "... didn't use to ..".

This is akin to the expression "fed up". I was fed up about something yesterday, but I can't say I am "feed up" right now.


----------



## liliput

I can't imagine where or from what era language guy's "strict grammar rules" come from but they have very little relation to modern English if they don't acknowledge the difference between "used to" as a past tense and "to be used to/to get used to" meaning to be or become accustomed to. 

We use "used to" to refer to things we did in the past but don't do anymore. It is a past tense without a specific time reference:
"I used to play football but now I have no legs"

The negative, as has already been pointed out, generally follows the same rule as other verbs:
"I didn't use to play football, but now I play every week to stop myself from getting fat"
*There is no d on the end in the negative*, because the past tense is indicated by the auxiliary "do". "Used to" and "use to" are always pronounced as one word "yoostoo" which is why some people are confused about the spelling.

Having said all that, technically I see no reason why one couldn't say "I used not to play football" and then shorten it to "I usedn't to play football" but it doesn't seem idiomatic to me.


----------



## Ynez

Grammar books normally say it is possible to find it written in different forms:

didn't use to
didn't used to (in speech the "d" in "used" is not likely to be heard)
used not to (rare and formal)
usedn't to (very rare)


----------



## Ynez

liliput said:


> *There is no d on the end in the negative*, because the past tense is indicated by the auxiliary "do". "Used to" and "use to" are always pronounced as one word "yoostoo" which is why some people are confused about the spelling.



liliput, if I am not wrong, the reason why "didn't used to" is still right nowadays is because "used to" is special, not a normal verb at all. In the past it was used in questions and negations like a modal verb, and for some time the right form of the negative was in fact "didn't used to" apart from "usedn't to".

I am not totally sure about all that, but the truth must not be very far from it. (The previous comment above where I listed the possibilities I am sure of since I checked a book).


----------



## liliput

BODYholic said:


> 'Used to' is a *single* English expression and it is used as "a package". Hence, it is incorrect to say "... didn't use to ..".
> 
> This is akin to the expression "fed up". I was fed up about something yesterday, but I can't say I am "feed up" right now.


 
This comparison doesn't work because the expression is "to be fed up" and as such is akin to "to be used to".
I am fed up/I am used to
I was fed up/I was used to
etc.
This type of construction is not similar to the "used to" past tense. 

If you want to compare it to another expression, how about the past tense of "to look forward to"?
I looked forward to/I didn't look forward to
I used to/I didn't use to


----------



## liliput

Ynez said:


> liliput, if I am not wrong, the reason why "didn't used to" is still right nowadays is because "used to" is special, not a normal verb at all. In the past it was used in questions and negations like a modal verb, and for some time the right form of the negative was in fact "didn't used to" apart from "usedn't to".
> 
> I am not totally sure about all that, but the truth must not be very far from it. (The previous comment above where I listed the possibilities I am sure of since I checked a book).


 
As "used to" functions as an auxiliary verb, it's probably correct to say that the strictly correct form is "used not to". However, in practice we usually say "didn't use to", so in that sense, yes it's special.


----------



## ewie

Pretty sure I'd heard/read _usen't to_ before I came across this thread for the first time 2 minutes ago ~ I _may_ even have used it myself. It doesn't sound much more remarkable than (e.g.) _needn't_ to me, just a lot rarer.


----------



## Loob

There are lots of related threads. The options are:

(1) "used to" => negative "usen't to"
(2) "used to" => negative "usedn't to"
(3) "used to" => negative "didn't use to"
(4) "used to" => negative "didn't used to"

Personally, I'm clear that "used to" has nothing to do with the verb "use", not least since they're pronounced quite differently.

I would vote for (2) or (4).


----------



## Katejo

I have never heard usedn't at all and would definitely advise against it.
More and more people are saying didn't used to but I don't like it and would never use it myself. Used to/used not to are much better.

Katejo


----------



## ewie

I find _didn't use(d) to _even more unremarkable than _use(d)n't to._
_Used not to _just sounds pedantic to me.
You pays your money and takes your choice.


----------



## panjandrum

BODYholic said:


> 'Used to' is a *single* English expression and it is used as "a package". Hence, it is incorrect to say "... didn't use to ..".
> [...]


_Used to/ used not to/ didn't use to_  is a very contentious topic.
Unsupported categorical statements such as "... it is incorrect to say ..." are simply personal opinion, in conflict with others and in conflict with sources.

It would help us all a great deal if opinions were to be supported by reputable external links. Then we would at least know if we were dealing with whim or considered opinion.


----------



## Forero

Where I live, _used to_ is usually but not always pronounced "yooss to".  Some people here pronounce it in careful speech as "yoozd to".  I have never heard "usen't to", but I have heard "did _not_ use to" (both as "yooz to" and as "yooss to").  I have only heard "used to" in simple past tense, and only in the same constructions as "dared to" or "needed to" (with a different meaning of course):

_ I dared to speak up when no one else would.
I needed to speak up when no one else would.
I used to speak up when no one else would.

You didn't dare (to) talk back to your father.
You didn't need to talk back to your father.
You didn't use to talk back to your father.
__
She *did* dare to get her work done.
She *did* need to get her work done.
She *did* use to get her work done.
_
_ They dared to not finish their homework.
They needed to not finish their homework.
They used to not finish their homework.

_    By the way, I used to wear contact lenses, but I never got used to it.


----------



## natkretep

BODYholic said:


> 'Used to' is a *single* English expression and it is used as "a package". Hence, it is incorrect to say "... didn't use to ..".
> 
> This is akin to the expression "fed up". I was fed up about something yesterday, but I can't say I am "feed up" right now.


 
But I always thought of 'used to' (in its semi-modal use) as being marked for past tense. 'I used to sing loudly' = I don't now (different from: 'I am used to loud singing'). If you use another modal, the past tense marker moves to the other modal, so I would say and write 'I didn't use to sing loudly'. Of course we could avoid the issue by saying 'I never used to sing loudly'.


----------



## Ynez

Ynez said:


> In the past it was used in questions and negations like a modal verb, and *for some time the right form of the negative was in fact "didn't used to" apart from "usedn't to"*.



I've been trying to find some source talking about this, but I finally think I made it up in my mind.  The only authentic form was "usedn't to", but in colloquial speech it became normal to say "didn't use(d) to".

Some books do not mention "didn't used to" and just give "didn't use to" and "usedn't to" as possibilities.

Anyhow, it seems people simply avoid writing these forms.


----------



## liliput

As our local friendly orang-utan has asked for reliable sources:
Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage" (highly recommended for and by English teachers) states that questions and negatives "Often have _did...used_ instead of _did...use_" - which I understand to mean that _did...use_ is technically correct but _did...used_ is just as common (if not more so). It also lists the contraction "usedn't" as a possible contraction but says that_ never used_ is the most common negative. Furthermore _used not _is deemed possible in formal style, but uncommon.


----------



## BODYholic

liliput said:


> This comparison doesn't work because the expression is "to be fed up" and as such is akin to "to be used to".
> I am fed up/I am used to
> I was fed up/I was used to
> etc.
> This type of construction is not similar to the "used to" past tense.
> 
> If you want to compare it to another expression, how about the past tense of "to look forward to"?
> I looked forward to/I didn't look forward to
> I used to/I didn't use to



I think you are right.
Admittedly, I always read and write "didn't used to". 

PS: It took me a while to find out who the orang-utan is. ^_^"


----------



## Forero

I notice that I don't use "to" after "oughtn't", "needn't", or "dare not"/"daren't", but I do use "to" after "didn't need" and sometimes after "didn't dare".

Is "to" obligatory after "used not"/"usedn't"?


----------



## natkretep

The pattern seems to be clear for the modal or semi-modal use:
_*Modal use*
I dare go. I daren't go.
Only interested parties need reply. Uninterested parties needn't reply.
__*Non-modal use*
I dare to go. I don't dare to go.
Only interested parties need to reply. Uninterested parties don't need to reply._

The _used to_ example is just complicated by the fact that the _to_ is part of the semi-modal. So it should always be there.


----------



## Thomas1

Loob said:


> There are lots of related threads. The options are:
> 
> (1) "used to" => negative "usen't to"
> (2) "used to" => negative "usedn't to"
> (3) "used to" => negative "didn't use to"
> (4) "used to" => negative "didn't used to"
> 
> Personally, I'm clear that "used to" has nothing to do with the verb "use", not least since they're pronounced quite differently.
> 
> I would vote for (2) or (4).


Well, Loob here is something that may be of interest:
_transitive verb_1_archaic_ *:* accustom,   habituate
[...]
_intransitive verb_1—used in the past with _to_ to indicate a former fact or state <we _used_ to go more often><didn't _use_ to smoke>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

Why the pronunciation is different I don't know, perhaps OED says something about this, but I have no access to it.



liliput said:


> As our local friendly orang-utan has asked for reliable sources:
> Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage" (highly recommended for and by English teachers) states that questions and negatives "Often have _did...used_ instead of _did...use_" - which I understand to mean that _did...use_ is technically correct but _did...used_ is just as common (if not more so). It also lists the contraction "usedn't" as a possible contraction but says that_ never used_ is the most common negative. Furthermore _used not _is deemed possible in formal style, but uncommon.


I haven't got Swan at hand, so here's a question: is this form, i.e. _did... used/didn't used to_ tagged anyhow?

Another source on _used to_:
For its interrogative and negative it usually follows the auxiliary pattern:
_I used not/usedn't to go._
But technically used has no infinitive the forms *didn't use to* and *did he, she, etc.use to?* are quite often heard.
_A Practical English Grammar_, A.J. Thomson.

Nothing more on it.

Another source Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English says:
used not to do something
British English 
You used not to fuss like this.



Forero said:


> I notice that I don't use "to" after "oughtn't", "needn't", or "dare not"/"daren't", but I do use "to" after "didn't need" and sometimes after "didn't dare".
> 
> Is "to" obligatory after "used not"/"usedn't"?


Yes it is (as is after _ought_, though I realise this may very well be a matter of a dialectal difference).


Tom


----------



## liliput

> I haven't got Swan at hand, so here's a question: is this form, i.e. _did... used/didn't used to_ tagged anyhow?


 
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What do you mean?


----------



## Matching Mole

Merriam-Webster's _English Usage_ has quite a bit to say about "used to". It begins with examples from 17th and 18th century British English, which include "uses to":
"I did this night give the waterman who uses to carry me 10s" [Pepys, 1667]. There's also a quote from Milton, from a few years later, with "then useing to" [sic]. M-W then goes on to say that the usage is in modern times restricted to the past tense: "used to" and the negatives "didn't use to" and "didn't used to", etc.

M-W declares that, according to their evidence, "didn't use to" is "the usual and correct form" in the US. However, it says that "didn't used to" is considered "unexeptionable" (Chambers 1985), or even "perhaps better" (Longman, 1988) in British English.

Quirk et al. regard "did ... used to" to be nonstandard on both sides of the Atlantic.

M-W finds "usedn't to" and even "used not to" to be rare in the US, according to their research, and Longman (UK) finds them relatively uncommon in comparison to "didn't use(d) to".


----------



## Loob

Thomas1 said:


> Loob said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of related threads. The options are:
> 
> (1) "used to" => negative "usen't to"
> (2) "used to" => negative "usedn't to"
> (3) "used to" => negative "didn't use to"
> (4) "used to" => negative "didn't used to"
> 
> Personally, I'm clear that "used to" has nothing to do with the verb "use", not least since they're pronounced quite differently.
> 
> I would vote for (2) or (4).
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Loob here is something that may be of interest:
> _transitive verb_1_archaic_ *:* accustom, habituate
> [...]
> _intransitive verb_1—used in the past with _to_ to indicate a former fact or state <we _used_ to go more often><didn't _use_ to smoke>
Click to expand...

Sorry, Tom: I should have been clearer.

What I meant was that in my view there is no longer a link between "used to" and the verb "use".


----------



## Thomas1

I see Loob, thanks for clarification. I am intrigued by different pronunciations though. 
I used to paint.
I used this brush.
The two, as far as I understand, are pronounced in a different manner, yust and yuzd respectively, even though they origin from the same verb. 


liliput said:


> I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What do you mean?


For instance:
_transitive verb_1_archaic_ *:* accustom,   habituate

used not to do something
British English 
You used not to fuss like this.

These are the examples I had inclued in my previous post, _used _in the first sense is tagged as _archaic _in MW dictionary and _used not to do_ as British English in LCDE. Is my question incomprehensibly formulated?

Tom


----------



## Matching Mole

The sense marked as archaic by M-W is the transitive form meaning to accustom ("to _make_ [something/someone] used to [something]"). I don't know how this was used, perhaps, for example "he used me to the ways of city life" ("he accostomed me to..."). "Used to" is certainly not used in this way today.

As for the pronunciation, in "used to" it is similar to a modal verb, so I suspect it is contracted because it is generally not in a stressed position: the main verb is. This is why "I would", etc., often becomes "I'd", etc.


----------



## Loob

Thomas1 said:


> I am intrigued by different pronunciations though.
> I used to paint.
> I used this brush.
> The two, as far as I understand, are pronounced in a different manner, yust and yuzd respectively, even though they origin from the same verb.


 
Yes, absolutely right.

There's a similar pronunciation difference between the adjectives _used = accustomed_ and _used < past participle of use: s_ee these extracts from the_ Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English_


> *used*/ju:st/
> *be/get used to (doing) something*
> to have experienced something so that it no longer seems surprising, difficult, strange etc: _I do the dishes every day, so I'm used to it._
> _I can't get used to the idea that you're grown up now._


 (source)



> *used* /ju:zd/
> 1 *used cars/clothes etc*
> cars, clothes etc that have already had an owner [= second-hand]: a used car salesman
> 2 dirty or not in good condition any longer, as a result of being used: a used tissue


 (source)


----------



## natkretep

Isn't the pronunciation difference to do with what follows _used_? In other words, it's to do with the phonological context. _Used_ in 'used to' comes before a voiceless context, so the consonants at the end are also voiceless /st/. Compare this with 'have to' and 'has to', generally pronounced /haftə/ and /hastə/, and 'have gone' and 'has gone' pronounced /həv .../ and /həz .../


----------



## Forero

Where I come from, I hear _have_ in "have to" both as /hæf/ and as /hæv/ and _use_ in "used to" as /jus/, /juz/, and /juzd/, depending on how fast or how deliberately the person is speaking.  Most often I hear the unvoiced versions, though less often when _to_ sounds like "too" as in "I don't swim as much as I used to."

I knew someone in college who said "having to" with an /f/ sound.  Pity there is no "us(ed)ing to" to compare with.


----------



## natkretep

Forero said:


> I knew someone in college who said "having to" with an /f/ sound.  Pity there is no "us(ed)ing to" to compare with.



Really? And this person is not a foreigner? I suppose I can imagine a kind of Welsh accent where someone might say _having_ with an /f/ sound.


----------



## foxfirebrand

When the OED was quoted in post #9 *three pages ago,*the word "usen't" was cited.

Ever since then, some people have been asserting that "usedn't" is in the OED, and using that "word" interchangeably with "usen't."

I really can't understand the stubbornnes of people who want "usedn't" to be a word-- would you _please_ check out post #9 and clarify that "usen't" is the word that's in the OED, and _not_ "usedn't?"

There's so much that could be said, but I don't want to go on a pointless rant.  If I can help clear up the conflation of the dreadful "usen't" with the unimaginably worse "usedn't," that's enough of a blow to strike for common sense and sanity.
.


----------



## Forero

natkretep said:


> Really? And this person is not a foreigner? I suppose I can imagine a kind of Welsh accent where someone might say _having_ with an /f/ sound.


She was born in Illinois, grew up and went to college (university) in Arkansas, and now lives in New Jersey.  Her degree is in English.

I have never had a problem understanding her English, but it is a little different from mine.


----------



## foxfirebrand

natkretep said:


> Really? And this person is not a foreigner? I suppose I can imagine a kind of Welsh accent where someone might say _having_ with an /f/ sound.



I think forero was thinking of _hafta,_ which is so non-standard that even I don't use it.  _Gotta _has it outclassed by a mile.

"Now I hafta go take a shower."
.


----------



## Forero

I mean that she said something like "I wish I could get from here to there without haffing to drive my car."  I have never heard anyone else say it that way, but it sounds more natural to me than "usedn't".  Still, I can see a bit of logic behind both, speaking informally of course.  No telling what will still "work" two generations from now.

Still I just say "didn't used to" like those around me, and no one here (where I live) thinks it strange.  For international use, I am beginning to prefer "never used to".


----------



## Ynez

foxfirebrand said:


> When the OED was quoted in post #9 *three pages ago,*the word "usen't" was cited.
> 
> Ever since then, some people have been asserting that "usedn't" is in the OED, and using that "word" interchangeably with "usen't."
> 
> I really can't understand the stubbornnes of people who want "usedn't" to be a word-- would you _please_ check out post #9 and clarify that "usen't" is the word that's in the OED, and _not_ "usedn't?"
> 
> There's so much that could be said, but I don't want to go on a pointless rant.  If I can help clear up the conflation of the dreadful "usen't" with the unimaginably worse "usedn't," that's enough of a blow to strike for common sense and sanity.
> .



You made me go for a walk to check the OED  In mine (1998) the word "usen't" is not an entry (neither is "usedn't"). There is an entry for "usenet" that is not probably in yours if you have an older version of the OED. 

Under the entry "use" there is a paragraph with their opinion about all this we've been talking about, but they don't mention "usen't" there either (I've seen it in some grammar books).

The participants in this thread have been citing English grammar books, not dictionaries, and we commented they offer different explanations.


----------



## Thomas1

languageGuy said:


> I checked with the OED, and "usen't" is listed there, along with "useter."
> 
> But I would still avoid it.



I have no access to the OED so I can't tell whether usedn't is there for sure.

Tom


----------



## Arrius

Axl said:


> *Usedn't* is not a legitimate contraction. The website is wrong. I would be very careful about trusting the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia as an authority on language henceforth!
> 
> Axl.


 
Our old English master at my grammar school in London used to say that *didn't use to* was wrong, and insisted on *used not to* and _*usedn't to*_.  The vast majority now defy his dictum and say *didn't use to*, but there are still a few genteel and venerable English folk who always say  *usedn't to*...plus myself.
  As is usual in English, yesterday's solecisms have become today's standard usage.


----------



## Forero

How are _usedn't_ and _usen't _pronounced anyway?  Are they both "yoossnt"?


----------



## Arrius

Forero said:


> How are _usedn't_ and _usen't _pronounced anyway? Are they both "yoossnt"?


 
That's pretty well the way I say _usedn't,_ but I'd add a murmur vowel otherwise known as a schwa (pronounced like the _a_ in _a_go) between the _ss_ and the _n_, as I don't think the way you have spelt it phonetically is pronounceable. In the IPA the schwa or shwa is represented by an inverted lower case _e_, which I do not know how to access.
As for *usen't to*, that is a written form I have been unable to find in any dictionary:
http://www.onelook.com/?w=usen%27t&ls=b
(First time I've given a link to prove something wasn't there)

The following does cast further light on the matter. Note the comment *didn't used to (much more common)* , but it doesn't say that this double past tense is correct, which supports my point of yesterday's solecisms becoming today's standard usage. The majority are eventually right, however wrong to start with:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Usedn't
I haven't taken the time to read the all the previous 86 posts, so please forgive me if I have repeated anything.


----------



## Jinsey

Becky85 said:


> Changing '*He used to go to our school*' to '*He was used to going to our school*' changes the meaning of the sentence.
> 
> *He used to go to our school* = *He once attended our school*
> 
> *He was used to going to our school *= *He had become used to it, he had become settled with the idea of going to our school, going to our school had become a familiar thing for him.*



I deprecate above statements, curiously,wondering whether both these two sentences have any difference in meaning.

*He used to go to our school.* = *He was used to go to our school.*

Regards, 
Jinsey

Thanks so much for helping.


----------



## Arrius

I fear life is too short to (re-)read the rest of the earlier messages, so what I say here about *Jinsey*'s post #88 may well seem like repetition*:*

*He used to go to our school = He formerly attended our school* (slightly clearer than *Becky85*'s paraphrase, perhaps)
But the sentence,
*He was used to go to our school* could only have the possible, but rather unlikely, meaning that _we got him to carry us to school on his shoulders or his back. _
This may have been "a slip of the keyboard" for the intended and correct
*He was used to going to our school,* which means _he had become accustomed to attending our school_


----------



## pickarooney

Interesting thread. I've been saying 'use(d)n't' all my life but had never seen it written down before. I have to admit it looks odd in print with the D but somehow incorrect without it. 

I've often heard "didn't used to" but have never liked it. It's like "aren't I" instead of "amn't I", a sort of forced, illogical version of a construction with a simplified pronunciation.


----------



## Jinsey

Arrius said:


> I fear life is too short to (re-)read the rest of the earlier messages, so what I say here about *Jinsey*'s post #88 may well seem like repetition*:*
> 
> *He used to go to our school = He formerly attended our school* (slightly clearer than *Becky85*'s paraphrase, perhaps)
> But the sentence,
> *He was used to go to our school* could only have the possible, but rather unlikely, meaning that _we got him to carry us to school on his shoulders or his back. _
> This may have been "a slip of the keyboard" for the intended and correct
> *He was used to going to our school,* which means _he had become accustomed to attending our school_



I'd have committed a mistake of typing wrongly in my previous post. But anyway, thanks for having replied to my question.


----------



## Word Eater

An old soviet book on english grammar I used to read as a kid had this statement: the negative form of "used to" is "used not to" with a contraction "usedn't to"


----------



## Chasint

In BE I've heard

1. used not to 
2. usedn't to
3. didn't use to

I'd probably use 1.

__________________________________________________________
Note
I've also met with 

_3a didn't use*d* to_

however I regard that as a recent departure from logic.


----------



## PaulQ

Word Eater said:


> An old soviet book on English grammar ... the negative form of "used to" is "used not to" with a contraction "usedn't to"


Your old Soviet book is right but the author should have mentioned that "usedn't to" is colloquial.


----------



## mplsray

The Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd ed., June 2011, in the online subscription version has the following to say, under the etymology for the entry "use, _v._":


> Corresponding negative constructions [corresponding to "_used to_ as /ˈjuːstuː/ in quasi-modal use"] are also formed with _not_ directly modifying _use_..., perhaps by analogy with the usual pattern for modal verbs in English (although always with _to-_infinitive). Beside the full form _used not_, examples are also found with contraction of _not_, with the assimilation and loss of dental described above usually represented in the spelling (although _usedn't_ occasionally occurs as well as _usen't_ )



That last part means that _usedn't_ is sometimes found, but is pronounced the same as _usen't._

Under IV. 21. b. (g.) it says:


> In base form with contracted negative (_usen't to_).
> Occas. in past tense form, as _usedn't to_.



The last cite it gives is:


> 2000   _Irish Times_ (Nexis) 13 Sept. 65   She stops and smells the roses now. She usen't to know what colour roses were.


----------



## Pollux_geminae

modgirl said:


> I have never heard *usedn't* in my life.  I'm also a bit shocked to see it on that website!  I'm no expert, but I can guarantee it is not common usage in the United States.  How on earth would it be pronounced?  My sincere advice is to stay completely away from it.  I looked at that website a bit, and I'm completely unimpressed.  I personally would not trust it for information.





Axl said:


> *Usedn't* is not a legitimate contraction.  The website is wrong.  I would be very careful about trusting the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia as an authority on language henceforth!
> 
> Axl.



/ˈjuːsənt/

usedn't to - Wiktionary

Usedn't definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Definition of USEDN'T


----------



## velisarius

PaulQ said:


> Your old Soviet book is right but the author should have mentioned that "usedn't to" is colloquial.


To my ear it's very old-fashioned (and colloquial but not informal).  I'd be quite surprised to hear it used today in England. It's one of those usages that are gracefully fading away, I think.


----------



## MrMuselk

That is true. This is something has been shed rom the english language, really. I’ve only seen it once, used in a very old print.


----------



## nsauce

Forero said:


> I notice that I don't use "to" after "oughtn't", "needn't", or "dare not"/"daren't", but I do use "to" after "didn't need" and sometimes after "didn't dare".
> 
> Is "to" obligatory after "used not"/"usedn't"?



No one answered this question so I feel I should. "Usedn't" is still alive and well in Ireland. Certainly, in the south west of Ireland where I am from "usedn't" is the most common negative form of "used to". And yes as Forero has suggested so many years ago, we drop the "to" after the "n't". 

Example sentences:
I usedn't like wine but recently I've grown quite fond of it.
We usedn't stay out too late on Sunday nights because we had school on Monday.
He usedn't eat vegetables but he's mad for them now!
Why is he so angry these days? He usedn't be like that at all!

As for the pronunciation the d is dropped - use(d)n't. The d is also dropped in the pronunciation of the positive in Ireland so we would say use(d) to, use rhyming with moose. Consequently, usedn't sounds like yoose-int.


----------



## Hildy1

According to this Ngram. there seems to have been a slight revival of "usedn't" in recent years.
Google Books Ngram Viewer


----------



## abluter

It is quite wrong to say "I didn't used to."  That is like saying "I didn't went there."  It is correct to say "I didn't use to".  My experience (in England) is very like djdaragh's in Ireland.  I very often say "I usedn't to" or, more often, "I used not to", which is exactly the same as "I usedn't to" but without the contraction.  It might help to think of the antiquated locution "It was my use to go hunting", where "use" is a noun. The whole question is not all that complicated or difficult, surely?


----------



## nsauce

Hildy1 said:


> According to this Ngram. there seems to have been a slight revival of "usedn't" in recent years.
> Google Books Ngram Viewer



Wow yes very interesting that it has come back in vogue!



abluter said:


> It is quite wrong to say "I didn't used to."  That is like saying "I didn't went there."  It is correct to say "I didn't use to".  My experience (in England) is very like djdaragh's in Ireland.  I very often say "I usedn't to" or, more often, "I used not to", which is exactly the same as "I usedn't to" but without the contraction.  It might help to think of the antiquated locution "It was my use to go hunting", where "use" is a noun. The whole question is not all that complicated or difficult, surely?



I'm sure "I didn't used to" just arises from people spelling in a phonetic sort of way where the "to" gets tacked onto the use (yooseto) and then confusing that with the t sound that can exist in some past tense verbs. I'm not saying it is correct, just that I can understand how it came about.


----------



## Ponyprof

I have never seen or heard this contraction, and I have lived and traveled in a number of English speaking countries, and am widely read in literature of all decades. 

However, I don't have much exposure to the more local English, Scots, and Irish dialects. So it's interesting to learn that this is a legitimate dialect word.


----------



## Loob

It's probably simplest to treat _*used to *_like we treat_* ought to*_, with which it has a lot in common (_*ought*_ originated of course as a past tense of_* owe*_).

In other words, just avoid the negative and interrogative wherever possible.


----------



## velisarius

abluter said:


> It is quite wrong to say "I didn't used to."


It's your opinion, but (as has been noted before on this forum) it's very widely accepted as a common variant. I don't like it either .


----------



## nsauce

Loob said:


> It's probably simplest to treat _*used to *_like we treat_* ought to*_, with which it has a lot in common (_*ought*_ originated of course as a past tense of_* owe*_).
> 
> In other words, just avoid the negative and interrogative wherever possible.



I disagree. This is a thread on usedn't so I won't go into detail on ought/ought not, but there are plenty of use cases for the negative of used to. Arguing people should say used not, didn't use to or usedn't is one thing but saying it is best to avoid the negative form wherever possible is not right at all. Used to and its negative counterparts are very necessary forms of the continuous past tense in English.


----------



## Palem

I would always say or write usedn't to which seems the normal form to me.  I've heard people say didn't use(d) to but it sounds awkward and wrong. If I had to write with didn't I'd put use without d as the past is already in the didn't but it would look odd as we never use use to in the present nowadays. Some of the posts above confuse used to with am used to which are completely different structures and meanings.


----------



## velisarius

I can't say I've ever heard a native speaker use " I usen't to..." in speech.

I wonder why there's such a reluctance to accept what modern dictionaries have to say on the subject. Perhaps it's because the cidtionaries don't agree among themselves either.



> USAGE _(Collins)_
> The most common negative form of _used to_ is _didn't used to_ (or _didn't use to_), but in formal contexts _used not to_ is preferred



​


> Negative: _didn’t use to_​The negative of _used to_ is most commonly _didn’t use(d) to_. Sometimes we write it with a final _-d_, sometimes not. Both forms are common, but many people consider the form with the final _-d_ to be incorrect, and you should not use it in exams  (Used to)





People tend to have their own favourite and refuse to accept that other variants are also widely used.
>> 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


----------



## sound shift

velisarius said:


> I can't say I've ever heard a native speaker use " I usen't to..." in speech.


Ditto.


----------



## Lis48

I do use usedn't to in everyday speech but I would never use it in written form. I've never actually seen it written down before 
I usedn't (pronounced usent) to like olives but now I love them. 
I used not to like olives but now I love them.


----------



## london calling

I think it's safe to say that 'usedn't' still survives in some dialects. I've never heard it in the south of England, though.


----------



## MrMuselk

london calling said:


> I think it's safe to say that 'usedn't' still survives in some dialects. I've never heard it in the south of England, though.


I was about to mention that; I've never heard usedn't in Sussex, or in the surrounding areas. I can't speak for the whole south east, but I wasn't even aware until recently of its existence, much less use.


----------



## Edinburgher

It strikes me that a fairly non-controversial alternative might be "I never used to".


----------



## Loob

Yes. (That's one of the options mentioned in the Topic Summary.)


----------



## pbot1959

Thomas1 said:


> hi
> Recently we've had quite a big dispute on mayn't on the forum, I recalled of "usedn't" which is I think even rarer than mayn't. Do any of you encounter it???
> And which form of negative is most frequently used/do you use:
> 
> used not to
> did not/didn't use to
> did not/didn't used to ???
> Thanks for all your answers
> Thomas


Some people on the forum seem to be confusing the expression “to be used to [doing something]” with “I used to,” meaning I would do something habitually or repeatedly in the past.

I have never, ever encountered “usedn’t” and am quite sure it’s not legit. It’s not syntactically viable, if you break down the structure of the phrase.   

The correct negative of “I used to” is “I didn’t [did not] use to.”

See the following article in Merriam Webster: Is It 'Used To' or 'Use To'?


----------



## london calling

pbot1959 said:


> Some people on the forum seem to be confusing the expression “to be used to [doing something]” with “I used to,” meaning I would do something habitually or repeatedly in the past.
> 
> I have never, ever encountered “usedn’t” and am quite sure it’s not legit. It’s not syntactically viable, if you break down the structure of the phrase.
> 
> The correct negative of “I used to” is “I didn’t [did not] use to.”
> 
> See the following article in Merriam Webster: Is It 'Used To' or 'Use To'?


Have you read all the above? And in any case "I used not to" (usen't to)* is *syntactically viable, in BE. 

See Merriam-Webster:

Definition of _used not to_​British, old-fashioned
—used to say that something did not exist or repeatedly happen in the past but exists or happens now
You _used not to_ smoke, did you?

Macmillan:

In formal English, negatives are often formed with used not to: They used not to allow shops to be open on Sundays. The short forms usen’t to and usedn’t to are sometimes used, but they sound rather formal and old-fashioned.


----------



## telletubby

Thomas1 said:


> hi
> Recently we've had quite a big dispute on mayn't on the forum, I recalled of "usedn't" which is I think even rarer than mayn't. Do any of you encounter it???
> And which form of negative is most frequently used/do you use:
> 
> used not to
> did not/didn't use to
> did not/didn't used to ???
> Thanks for all your answers
> Thomas


used not to


----------



## Adam Warren

While I agree that in writing, the informal used'nt and others are not suitable, it is all right to use these contractions, especially in the spoken word, and in direct-speech quotations, if one wishes to characterise the speaker, or poke fun at the speaker. Contractions generally don't fit in formal writing. I think the distinction between ordinary speech and the written word will clarify the issue.


----------



## velisarius

The Ngram for _usedn't to _suggests that there's been a revival of this form (in printed sources) since the year 2000. 
Google Books Ngram Viewer

I compared the Ngrams for BE and AE and for English Fiction too, but they don't show the same sudden increase, so it isn't clear to me where it's coming from.


----------



## mgeisehoff

Thomas1 said:


> hi
> Recently we've had quite a big dispute on mayn't on the forum, I recalled of "usedn't" which is I think even rarer than mayn't. Do any of you encounter it???
> And which form of negative is most frequently used/do you use:
> 
> used not to
> did not/didn't use to
> did not/didn't used to ???
> Thanks for all your answers
> Thomas


These are not words, at least in any English I have ever spoken or learned.  I would not understand them if you used them.


----------



## london calling

You're in a minority, then. 😊


----------

