I used not to play football.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:29 am

I used not to play football.

Is there any real grammatical justification for that form? Personally, I think not.

Lotus · Post by **Lotus** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:39 pm

I didn't used to play football.
I never used to play football.
I've never played football.
I didn't play football before.
I didn't play football.

I think I agree with you, Metal.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 3:53 pm

I don't know what you mean by "grammatical justification". In any case, it doesn't cause me to raise my eyebrows, so I see it as a feature of some Englishes which the grammar books may not have caught up with yet.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:57 pm

I don't know what you mean by "grammatical justification".

The grammatical justifiction for these is the use of an auxiliary verb without do:

I won’t play football.
I needn’t play football.

That use restricted to modal and semi-modal verbs, and is followed by the bare infinitive. That is common across many English variants. But what about "I used not to play football"? Can you explain its grammar to me and tell me how it fits in with English grammar as a system?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 5:58 pm

Can you explain its grammar to me and tell me how it fits in with English grammar as a system?

That's the sort of question I used to get from German students in England. No set of grammar rules is going to account for every single utterance, there will always be phrases that NS's use which don't neatly fit into the system.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:16 pm

No set of grammar rules is going to account for every single utterance, there will always be phrases that NS's use which don't neatly fit into the system.

And those can still be justified grammatically, can't they? I mean, even idiolects have grammar, right?

For example, looking at Indian English, both these can be justified by reference to Hindi grammar:

I am understanding it.
She is knowing the answer.

But, for the life of me, I cannot see the justification behind "I used not to...".

Buddhaheart · Post by **Buddhaheart** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:52 pm

Originally posted by Metal56:

metal56 wrote:I used not to play football.

Is there any real grammatical justification for that form? Personally, I think not.

Rather formal and old-fashioned. How about ‘I never used to play football?”

Originally posted by Lotus:

I didn't used to play football.

Shouldn't that be "I didn't use to play football."

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 7:59 pm

Sure, technically speaking used to shouldn't have not stuck in the middle. I'm not saying it's correct, much less grammatically justified, but IMO only pedantic grammar lawyers worry about such things.

If a student were to ask me (and no one ever has, not even the German lawyer type) I'd say something like "OK, there's no grammatical justification for it but sometimes a native speaker might let it slip out if their mouth works faster than their brain." It's the language equivalent of leaving your car parked on a double yellow line for five minutes on a quiet Sunday afternoon.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:34 pm

Rather formal and old-fashioned. How about ‘I never used to play football?”

That's one way of resolving things.

And I agree on "didn't use to play"

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:35 pm

<Sure, technically speaking used to shouldn't have not stuck in the middle. I'm not saying it's correct, much less grammatically justified, but IMO only pedantic grammar lawyers worry about such things. >

Or teachers who have to teach a system.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:53 am

Guess what I like: I used to not play football. The "wrong" one sounds more right to me

Lotus · Post by **Lotus** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:16 am

Buddhaheart wrote:Originally posted by Metal56:
Originally posted by Lotus:
I didn't used to play football.
Shouldn't that be "I didn't use to play football."

Yes. Sorry, I missed that.

Posted by lolwhites:

Sure, technically speaking used to shouldn't have not stuck in the middle. I'm not saying it's correct, much less grammatically justified, but IMO only pedantic grammar lawyers worry about such things.

Sorry, but I think I'll have to disagree with you on this one. Sometimes we will hear a slip of the tongue, as you point out yourself, but people will frequently realize their mistake and correct it in conversation. If not, then their friends are likely to correct them. The point is, everyone who hears it recognized it as an abberration. No one accepts such slips as normal English.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:32 am

@Lotus: Sometimes slips of the tongue get corrected, sometimes they become accepted. I wouldn't bother to correct someone in conversation who said I used not to..., I'd be concentrating on the content.

@Metal: Nothing wrong with teaching a system, but if I understand you, you seem to be saying that one exception brings the whole system crashing down. It doesn't. Just tell students it's an exception and get on with teaching the system.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:02 am

Lorikeet wrote:Guess what I like: I used to not play football. The "wrong" one sounds more right to me

Really? So, what's the grammatical thinking behind that one?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:04 am

Just tell students it's an exception and get on with teaching the system.

I'm not sure that teachers know what they're saying when they talk about exceptions. Students often come away thinking that English is full of exceptions. And when I see an unusual construction, the first thing I do is ask whether it fits the system or not. If not, fair enough.

And what exactly is "I used not to..." an exception of/to?

Teacher Discussion Forums

I used not to play football.

I used not to play football.

Re: I used not to play football.

Re: I used not to play football.