I used not to play football.

[lolwhites]

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.

I agree entirely. English is a lot more regular than it's often given credit for. But I don't think used not to is going to fit into the system without some serious rule bending.

I would analyse it lexically i.e. think if it as a "chunk" that has entered the language rather than something that is being generated by rules. And it's become familiar enough not to raise eyebrows among many NSs, including me and Lorikeet.

[metal56]

I would analyse it lexically i.e. think if it as a "chunk" that has entered the language rather than something that is being generated by rules. And it's become familiar enough not to raise eyebrows among many NSs, including me and Lorikeet.

Yes, as I said, there is no real grammatical justification for that form?

[metal56]

If some speakers think it fit to say "I used not to play football.", would the same speakers also find it fit to say "I am used not to play/playing football"?

[jotham]

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

Yes, there is. The reason for doing so arises from a linguistic contention. This would perhaps be said more often by British people(?); it wouldn't be said that much in American English. Our editors and writers would prefer to say "I never used to play football."
As for the linguistic contention arising from the construction didn't used to, most grammarians, including Garner, believe the structure is more accurate idiomatically, historically, or phonetically with the d: "I didn't used to play football." Popular usage also figures in.
I've done Google searches on major newspapers and magazines using all three phrases; American and British publications prefer never used to by a long shot. This construction forfends the debate concerning didn't use or didn't used to, which phrase also smacks of dialect, it is claimed. But even comparing didn't use to and didn't used to, the consensus is still for didn't used to with the d in print sources by a 4 to 1 ratio.
Linguistic publications and dictionaries, however, prefer didn't use to without the d.

[metal56]

Yes, there is. The reason for doing so is actually part of a linguist contention. This would only be said by British people; it would never be said in American English. Our editors and writers would prefer to say "I never used to play football."

Sorry? Where's the grammatical justification there?

As for the constuction didn't used to, most grammarians, including Garner, believe the structure is more accurate idiomatically, historically, or phonetically with the d: "I didn't used to play football."

Most grammarians? Really" How do they explain the need for the "d", grammatically? And aren't "didn't use to" and "didn't used to" pronounced in exactly the same way?

But even comparing didn't use to and didn't used to, the consensus is still for didn't used to in print sources by a 4 to 1 ratio.

Yes, I think it's a clear case of hypercorrection.

I've done Google searches on major newspapers and magazines using all three phrases; American and British publications prefer never used to by a long shot. This construction forfends the debate concerning didn't use or didn't used to, which phrase also smacks of dialect, it is claimed.

Where is it written that such use "smacks of dialect"? And is "smacks of dialect" your phrase? If so, what does it mean? I'd say "didn't use to" and "didn't used to" are conversational and go across many dialects. They are used by many, including Standard English speakers.

Linguistic publications and dictionaries, however, prefer didn't use to.

And here's why one linguist recommends it:

My reasoning in making this recommendation is that use pronounced /ju:s/, i.e. with an unvoiced final consonant, is an auxiliary verb which, not being a modal verb, takes the infinitive with to. Thus I see it as analogous to want. I used to play football has the same structure as I wanted to play football. This being the case, it follows that the negative form must be I didn't use to play football and also that the question form must be Did you use to play football?

http://lavengro.typepad.com/peter_harve ... ed-to.html

[jotham]

As Garner says, the pronunciation for use is yooz and used is yoost — like "he used (yoost) to do it."
Addressing the idiomatic front, Garner says the phrase comes from an archaic meaning of use, which is "to be in the habit of."

The form of the verb is fixed in the positive used to, and is unchanged in the far less common (and far less accepted) negative form, didn't used to.

Anyhow, the linguist contention is probably divided neatly between grammarians and linguists on this one. And again, most newspapers and magazines on both sides of the Atlantic avoid it altogether by using never used to.

[metal56]

According to Garner, the pronunciation for use is yooz and used is yoost---like "he used (yoost) to do it."

So Garner says there are two "t" sounds, right? He says we should pronounce it as "yoost to", does he?

Idiomatically, Garner says the phrase comes from an archaic meaning of use, which is "to be in the habit of."

Isn't Garner talking about the noun there?

This is from the Etymology Dictionary:

use (v.)
c.1240, from O.Fr. user "use, employ, practice," from V.L. *usare "use," frequentative form of pp. stem of L. uti "to use," in Old L. oeti "use, employ, exercise, perform," of unknown origin. Replaced O.E. brucan (see brook (v.)). Used "second-hand" is recorded from 1595. User is recorded from 1935 in the narcotics sense, 1967 in the computer sense. User-friendly (1977) is said in some sources to have been coined by software designer Harlan Crowder as early as 1972. Verbal phrase used to "formerly did or was" (as in I used to love her) represents a construction attested from 1303, and common from c.1400, but now surviving only in p.t. form. The pronunciation is affected by the t- of to.

use (n.)
c.1225, from O.Fr. us, from L. usus "use, custom, skill, habit," from pp. stem of uti (see use (v.)). Useful is recorded from 1595; useless is first attested 1593

Anyhow, the linguist contention is probably divided neatly between grammarians and linguists on this one. And again, most newspapers and magazines on both sides of the Atlantic avoid it altogether by using never used to.

Which still leaves you with the job of justifying, grammtically, "I used not to...".

[metal56]

The old form of "used to" was did (or was). Folks would say such things as "I did love her once". I wonder what the negative form of that would have been?

[jotham]

According to Garner, the pronunciation for use is yooz and used is yoost — like "he used (yoost) to do it."

So Garner says there are two "t" sounds, right? He says we should pronounce it as "yoost to", does he?

No, he doesn't mean two t's; he means the absence of z replaced with s. I just added the pronunciation in that sentence to clarify, but probably confused in another area.

[Miss Elenious]

'To be or not to be, that is the question...'

This is the phrase I use to teach the negation of the infinitive to my students.
I consider 'used to' however to be one word, that is 'to' cannot be separated from used. That is why 'I used not to play football' does not sound right to me. How about

'I used to not play football.'

[metal56]

'To be or not to be, that is the question...'

This is the phrase I use to teach the negation of the infinitive to my students.
I consider 'used to' however to be one word, that is 'to' cannot be separated from used. That is why 'I used not to play football' does not sound right to me. How about

'I used to not play football.'

To me, that always sounds like a refusal. EG "At school, I always refused to play football".

[Miss Elenious]

'I used to not play football.'

To me, that always sounds like a refusal. EG "At school, I always refused to play football".

Can you give an example?

[metal56]

'I used to not play football.'

To me, that always sounds like a refusal. EG "At school, I always refused to play football".

Can you give an example?

I already did:

To me, that always sounds like a refusal. EG "At school, I always refused to play football".

Similar:

At school, I would always not play/refuse to play football.

At cards, you used to not play fair.

etc.

[metal56]

This construction forfends the debate concerning didn't use or didn't used to, which phrase also smacks of dialect, it is claimed.

What could a person mean by, and why would they want to use, "smacks of dialect"?

Sorry, Jotham, I gave you plenty of time to respond.

[Stephen Jones]

I agree with jotham and Garner regarding the pronunciation of the affirmative.

Do Americans retain the distinction in the negative? The British don't.