I used not to play football.

[jotham]

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.

I'm sorry, I'm not actively looking at the discussion board. I'm currently making a transition from Taiwan to Japan, so I may not be online for weeks at a time soon.
I believe Garner's exact words were reeks of dialect. I think he's just comparing a good fluid writing voice with casual dialogue.

[metal56]

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

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

How could the pronunciation of "used" be "yoost" if we never encounter that word by itself? It is always with "used to". Unless, as I said above, someone plays the hypercorrection game.

[jotham]

I agree with jotham and Garner regarding the pronunciation of the affirmative.
Do Americans retain the distinction in the negative? The British don't.

Do we retain the pronunciation yoost in the negative — I didn't used to?
I can't help it. When you put a d and t together, can you distinguish the d? I thought the ellision would naturally come out to be t no matter how hard you tried.

[metal56]

I believe Garner's exact words were reeks of dialect. I think he's just comparing a good fluid writing voice with casual dialogue.

Do you think "reeks of", or even "smacks of", are suitable words for a grammatician to use when talking about language use? And did he say "dialogue" or "dialect"?

Good luck with the move, BTW.

[Lorikeet]

I agree with jotham and Garner regarding the pronunciation of the affirmative.
Do Americans retain the distinction in the negative? The British don't.

Do we retain the pronunciation yoost in the negative — I didn't used to?
I can't help it. When you put a d and t together, can you distinguish the d? I thought the ellision would naturally come out to be t no matter how hard you tried.

I think those are two different things. "used to" and "didn't use to" are both "yoostuh" (ugh) for me. It can't be generalized to rules about putting a "d" and a "t" together, in my opinion. The "d" spelling in "used to" doesn't follow the "vowels in syllables ending in voiced consonants are longer" rule in my dialect.

That means if you say, "I had to go" (with my dialect) you will hear "I hadduh go" and the "t" is the one that will change (although I think you could make a case for an unaspirated initial t, as in "stop" which is quite close to a "d")

On the other hand, if you have a combination like "bad teeth", I find that the vowel length in "bad" is longer because of the "d" but the "t" in "teeth" is still aspirated. There is, however, no change in articulation.

[jotham]

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

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

I'm not sure I understand your question or assertion.
I used to play football.
I didn't used to play football.
Are you saying that British pronounce used differently in the negative sentence?

[jotham]

I believe Garner's exact words were reeks of dialect. I think he's just comparing a good fluid writing voice with casual dialogue.

Do you think "reeks of", or even "smacks of", are suitable words for a grammatician to use when talking about language use? And did he say "dialogue" or "dialect"?

Good luck with the move, BTW.

He used dialect. I'm not sure why you question "reeks of." You mean because it seems so negative? His reference book is for writers, who would want to know what's dialectal so they can avoid it in their own writing — it's not to make judgments on dialect speakers. Reeks and smacks of dialect are probably not suitable phrasings for a linguist, who studies speech patterns; but a grammarian, who studies fluid writing, might have more justification for using them.

[metal56]

His reference book is for writers who want to know what's dialectal and then probably avoid it in their own writing — it's not to make judgments on dialect speakers.

Which reference do you speak of?

Jotham, the word reeks says that something smells bad. It's the kind of emotive term I would not expect to find in a grammar publication. I'm surprised that you think it suitable. I'm writing to Garner tonight to ask him why he allowed himself to be so un-academic in his comments on dialect. We'll see what he says.

[jotham]

Well before doing anything too brash, perhaps you could take a look at the dictionaries first and inform your opinion before dispensing it.
And be sure to let us know how he responds; I'm sure it will be very sage and well-expressed.

give clear evidence of something unpleasant: to show very strong evidence of an unpleasant quality
The document reeks of the double standard.

To be pervaded by something unpleasant: “This document … reeks of self-pity and self-deception” (Christopher Hitchens).

to give a strong impression of some constituent quality or feature <a neighborhood that reeks of poverty>

[metal56]

to give a strong impression of some constituent quality or feature <a neighborhood that reeks of poverty>

Indeed, and just look at the collocation. Are you trying to tell us that "reeks of" has positive or neutral semantic prosody? Or maybe Garner is not aware of semantic prosody. Try and see how many positive collocations you get with "reeks of/a reek of"

wonderful reek of = 4 in Google, one of those being "reeks of sweaty flesh". Zero examples in the BNC.

incredible reek of = 1 in Google. Zero in the BNC.

beautiful reek of = 1 in Google. Zero in the BNC

pleasant reek of = 7 in Google. Zero in the BNC

........

BNC:

1 REEK OF BEER . 2 0.02
2 REEK OF AWKWARD PURITY 1 0.01
3 REEK OF ARSENIC MINGLED 1 0.01
4 REEK OF APPLES . 1 0.01
5 REEK OF AMMONIATES AND 1 0.01
6 REEK OF ALCOHOL AND 1 0.01
7 REEK OF ACTRESSES ; 1 0.01
8 REEK OF A PRINCIPLE 1 0.01
9 REEK OF UNDERSTANDING : 1 0.01
10 REEK OF THEIR HAIR 1 0.01
11 REEK OF THE PIT 1 0.01
12 REEK OF THE DUSTBIN 1 0.01
13 REEK OF THE CITY 1 0.01
14 REEK OF SWEAT AND 1 0.01
15 REEK OF STALENESS , 1 0.01
16 REEK OF STALE TOBACCO 1 0.01
17 REEK OF SOMETHING ACRID 1 0.01
18 REEK OF SMOULDERING INSULATION 1 0.01
19 REEK OF SALTED FISH 1 0.01
20 REEK OF RED HERRINGS 1 0.01
21 REEK OF PROSPERITY . 1 0.01
22 REEK OF PRIVET , 1 0.01
23 REEK OF POTENTIAL AND 1 0.01
24 REEK OF PARAFFIN OIL 1 0.01
25 REEK OF ORDURE VOIDED 1 0.01
26 REEK OF ONION AS WELL 1 0.01
27 REEK OF MELODY , 1 0.01
28 REEK OF HIS LITTER 1 0.01
29 REEK OF FORMULARISATION AND 1 0.01
30 REEK OF DRY-CLEANING . 1 0.01

http://corpus.byu.edu/bnc/

[Stephen Jones]

Are you saying that British pronounce used differently in the negative sentence?

Yes, or at least in my idiolect.

[jotham]

Indeed, and just look at the collocation. Are you trying to tell us that "reeks of" has positive or neutral semantic prosody? Or maybe Garner is not aware of semantic prosody. Try and see how many positive collocations you get with "reeks of/a reek of"

Ohhhh, I misunderstood you; I thought you meant that Garner used the word wrong, semantically. Yeah, I agree it has a negative connotation. But as I said before, dialect is necessarily negative when polishing your prose and necessarily positive when studying speech patterns. Moreover, most newspapers avoid "didn't used to" — and this because it somehow reflects negatively on their style...or at least not as positively.
Try to think of a book's function and audience. Garner's book isn't intended for studying dialects and respecting them, even though he personally might; it's about judging phrases for effective writing. When he says "reeks," he's talking about ill-fit constructions, not people. I think he grew up in Texas, so he might even have an accent himself.
If you were writing, for example, Metal's Modern American Usage, what word or phrasing would you replace it with?

Jotham, the word reeks says that something smells bad. It's the kind of emotive term I would not expect to find in a grammar publication. I'm surprised that you think it suitable.

[metal56]

Garner's book isn't intended for studying dialects and respecting them, even though he personally might; it's about judging phrases for effective writing.

There's a whole range of use between Garner's idea of effective writing and dialects. "Didn't use to" was not formed in any dialect circle that I know of, so how can it smack/reek of dialect? It is not dialect English.

And again, in which book does Garner use the word "reek"?

[jotham]

"Didn't use to" was not formed in any dialect circle that I know of, so how can it smack/reek of dialect? It is not dialect English.

Well, he didn't come out and say it is dialect, but rather reeks of dialect, or as Merriam-Webster puts it, "to give a strong impression of some constituent quality or feature."

And again, in which book does Garner use the word "reek"?

I highly recommend Garner's American Modern Usage for all budding or seasoned editors and writers. He is the next modern authority to replace the increasingly outdated Fowler. Garner's reference book could also help the linguist understand mainstream grammarian views, which aren't so off the wall as they might often think. And it could help them write their own documents and publications.
http://www.amazon.com/Garners-Modern-Am ... 0195161912

[metal56]

<Well, he didn't come out and say it is dialect, but rather reeks of dialect, or as Merriam-Webster puts it, "to give a strong impression of some constituent quality or feature.">

So, is he saying that if we use "didn't use to" it will sound as if we are using dialect?

And can you please tell me on which page of Garner's Modern American Usage he said "reeks of dialect"?

I highly recommend Garner's American Modern Usage for all budding or seasoned editors and writers.

Writers and editors of newpapers and journals, right? Most of his examples come from those text types. His book may not be suitable for fiction writers, where New Fowler's might be.

NB It might be useful if you got the title right when you're recommending it:

Garner's Modern American Usage (Hardcover)
by Bryan A. Garner (Author)