Is "used to" a modal? If not, what would you call

[Stephen Jones]

So the American editor is some kind of religious fundamentalist loony who believes he belongs to a superior caste to the rest of mankind! Do you hang out on the streets handing out leaflets like your confessional counterparts.

[Stephen Jones]

COCA
didn't use to 24
didn't used to 99

BNC
didn't use to 17
didn't used to 24

So the spelling with the 'd' is more common even in British English.

Frankly, just write whichever you feel like. Both appear to be legitimate.

[jotham]

So the American editor is some kind of religious fundamentalist loony who believes he belongs to a superior caste to the rest of mankind! Do you hang out on the streets handing out leaflets like your confessional counterparts.

Not any more than a doctor, lawyer, or musician. Would you choose a stranger without qualifications to conduct a life-or-death operation on you for the sake of egalitarian sensitivity? Would you choose some stranger who never played piano to perform the Wedding March at your wedding because musical skill really doesn't matter or exist? I rather think you'd choose someone from a "superior caste" for such functions.

[jotham]

COCA
didn't use to 24
didn't used to 99

BNC
didn't use to 17
didn't used to 24

So the spelling with the 'd' is more common even in British English.

I guess the M-W has been found in error then, along with Fluffy...again. I wonder why Fluffy chose to quote the M-W concerning evidence instead of the actual corpuses? Selective evidence?

Frankly, just write whichever you feel like. Both appear to be legitimate.

If I remember correctly, the phrase is considered sub-standard anyhow. It's much more common, better, and non-controversial to employ the phrase "never used to." What does the BNC and COCA say about that?
COCA 153
BNC 139

[JuanTwoThree]

Albeit grudgingly, I do accept that "didn't used to" has widespread acceptance and is even preferred. Nevertheless, I can't see any grammatical justification for it. There just shouldn't be two past markers together. But not every phenomenon gets explained. Explain the grammar of the modal phrase "had better".

I still think there are limits here. Would there really be a -d after an emphatic "did":

"I tell you, he did used to smoke"


I'm not sure about "sub-standard" as a term here. I think that in a situation and register where weak forms were inappropriate it would be most odd to write or say "I did not use(d) to" and would prefer "used not to". It'd be equally odd in a register where these weak forms were almost de rigeur not to go with the flow:

"You used to smoke, didn't you?" "Yes, I did. And didn't you use(d) to smoke a pipe?" "That's me"

I can't see anything sub-standard about that English. And it'd be plain silly and terrible writing to switch to "Used you not to spoke a pipe? there.

Call it conversational? Idiomatic? You can't write off the whole spoken register as "sub-standard".

[fluffyhamster]

Jotham, I am not in error, I am simply providing you with the information that you requested (some thanks would be nice). Nobody here was unaware that retaining the d may in fact be the majority choice by whatever margin in "actual usage" (as sampled from and to whenever), and I must admit that M-W's conclusions are somewhat puzzling, but then American publishers have generally been slow to invest in computerized, larger and more randomly-sampled corpora, especially of the "monitor" (synchronic) type (as opposed to finite, dating paper citation files often drawn from established "quality" sources). Anyway, none of this makes adding the d make any more sense to the more linguistically-minded (such as the clear majority on this forum), but by the same token, nobody is saying that others can't add the d whether by unconscious "error" or deliberate design ("consistency", "principle").

[jotham]

I still think there are limits here. Would there really be a -d after an emphatic "did":

"I tell you, he did used to smoke"

That's a very clever argument for the grammarian side. I could be wrong, but I just can't imagine there are many linguists or dictionaries who would really militate for taking out the d in that scenario. But for consistencys' sake, I suppose they should.

I'm not sure about "sub-standard" as a term here. I think that in a situation and register where weak forms were inappropriate it would be most odd to write or say "I did not use(d) to" and would prefer "used not to". It'd be equally odd in a register where these weak forms were almost de rigeur not to go with the flow:

"You used to smoke, didn't you?" "Yes, I did. And didn't you use(d) to smoke a pipe?" "That's me"

I can't see anything sub-standard about that English. And it'd be plain silly and terrible writing to switch to "Used you not to spoke a pipe? there.

Call it conversational? Idiomatic? You can't write off the whole spoken register as "sub-standard".

It is conversational. But if I wanted to write a polished article about some academic subject and devoid of dialogue, I would take great care to say the more eloquent "It never used to be that way," for example, instead of the more jarring or abrupt-sounding "it didn't used to be that way." It's like fine-tuning the violin a little bit so as to match the piano perfectly and render the performance more smashing. You could just as well play a duet or even a whole orchestra without tuning first and still have a pretty nice perfomance, but you know they always do that...because the pitch and resolution might not be quite as effective otherwise. Same thing with all these rules and phrases in writing.

[jotham]

Jotham, I am not in error, I am simply providing you with the information that you requested (some thanks would be nice). Nobody here was unaware that retaining the d may in fact be the majority choice by whatever margin in "actual usage" (as sampled from and to whenever),

You not only seemed blithely unaware of actual usage, but also said that if anyone were in doubt at all about the less common usage, you had the big gun, with which you, harmless Fluffy albeit trigger-happy and insouciant, proceeded to pull out your M-W and shoot from the hip like a bull in a china shop, recklessly quoting their evidence to prove your point.
But thanks.

[fluffyhamster]

All I can say again is 'hypercorrection'. Did(n't) followed by used to won't find a logical place in "my" grammar, regardless of its ratio in usage (though it should be noted as a real possibility), but I really have no opinion about native speakers especially using it, and the important thing for NN students is obviously that they use at least 'use' (an additional d would not interfere with written communication, and won't find expression in speech)! Basically, I wasn't defending the M-Ws "numerical" conclusions but like its general tone. I recall(ed) that you quoted the 4:1 ratio before (probably on the "football" thread), and that there were more statistics provided by others (including some from me), but I'm ultimately interested more in the logic than a blind appeal to numbers in this particular instance, which seems a bit of an "isolated" one.

Storm in a teacup then, a question of redundancy really, but milk and sugar usually needs stirring to get that balanced, "perfect" brew. Or as SJ says, 'Frankly, just write whichever you feel like. Both appear to be legitimate.' (Me, I'm Clark Gable and you Jotham are Scarlett O'Hara).

[JuanTwoThree]

In your imaginary formal piece, Jotham, I think I would opt for "It used not to be that way". The "didn't" is inappropriate anyway, and "it did not used to be that way" is long-winded.

Were it not for what concordances come up with, I think I'd agree with the M-W position, which Fluffyhamster links to above, more or less completely.

The earlier writers quoted, or their editors, disdained that extra "d" because it was not supposed to be there, I imagine. As I do.

Usage ultimately rules though, I am forced to admit since I certainly don't recognise any other authorities, and the more sophisticated evidence of concordances goes against the diktats of that entry. It proves yet again that natives should not be so dismissive of alternatives to their dialect, idiolect or sociolect. Which goes for me too.

What's odd about "didn't used to" is that belt and braces are very rare in English. It grates on me in the same way that the redundancy in "a friend of John's" does.

[fluffyhamster]

I thought Garner's quotation of the day today is pretty fitting about the qualitative difference between writers or editors and the rest.

Quotation of the Day: "The writing of literate Americans whose primary business is not writing but something else is pretty bad. It is muddy, backward, convoluted and self-strangled; it is only too obviously the product of a task approached unwillingly and accomplished without satisfaction or zeal. Except for the professionals among us, we Americans are hell on the English language." Donald J. Lloyd, "Our National Mania for Correctness," in A Linguistics Reader 57, 57-58 (Graham Wilson ed., 1967).

Surely Lloyd is saying that prescriptivism is stunting how ordinary people try to express themselves (or rather don't!); that is, that following so-called rules out of some peculiar linguistic insecurity is no way to lead one's writing life (you don't need to be an actual paid, professional writer to write, it is a skill we all possess and indeed have to use). I mean, just look at the title of the piece - Our National Mania for Correctness - and where it appeared in this instance (A Linguistics Reader). Put simply, I just do not understand what you have read into that, the use or inspiration that you're trying to make of or draw from it, Jotham.

You're really twisting yourself into a pretzel to come up with that interpretation. Is this another one of your creative "basically says" quotes? Is this what Lloyd is basically saying? Come on, he's saying that common people don't write well and that writers do. If we looked at the world through your lens, you'd have us assume that common people are prescriptively adept at all the writing skills while writers slough it all off and are more excellent anyhow.

Sorry to be a pain, but can I ask how others interpreted Lloyd there?

[Stephen Jones]

proceeded to pull out your M-W and shoot from the hip like a bull in a china shop, recklessly quoting their evidence to prove your point.

The things you disapprove of evidently don't include mixed metaphors.

I guess the M-W has been found in error then, along with Fluffy...again. I wonder why Fluffy chose to quote the M-W concerning evidence instead of the actual corpuses? Selective evidence?

No, simply different corpora. The COCA only covers the period from 1990-2007. And of course as it's a matter of spelling the influence of a very small number of copy editors should not be dismissed.

If I remember correctly, the phrase is considered sub-standard anyhow. It's much more common, better, and non-controversial to employ the phrase "never used to."

A most bizarre statement. Apart from anything else the meaning is different.

The "didn't" is inappropriate anyway, and "it did not used to be that way" is long-winded.

I would use don't and didn't in the most formal of pieces.

It grates on me in the same way that the redundancy in "a friend of John's" does.

The latter shouldn't grate with you. After all you say
a friend of mine not, *a friend of me

Would you choose a stranger without qualifications to conduct a life-or-death operation on you for the sake of egalitarian sensitivity?

When I go to the doctor I expect him to find out what is wrong with me and propose a solution. I don't expect him to go around reshaping me, stretching organs he considers too short, or clipping those which are longer than those in his anatomy textbook. When I send a text to a copy-editor or proof reader I expect him to find the mistakes that have slipped through and make suggestions where he feels the phrasing is particularly infelicitous, not like some crazed Dr. Frankenstrunk to fashion a completely new creation from the nuts and bolts he has hanging around in his pet guides to usage.

[Stephen Jones]

Sorry to be a pain, but can I ask how others interpreted Lloyd there?

The phrase convoluted and self-strangled does tend to back you up but without access to the whole article we can't say exactly what he is referring to.

I would note that the passage dates back more than fifty years. From my experience of online forums the main problem with the average American or Brit's writing is the obdurate refusal to follow the simplest rules of spelling, punctuation and sentence construction.

Entirely off-topic but there is an excellent article on dangling participles in the Guardian here http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/18/3

Davd McKie (aka Smallweed) is one of the few columnists who can write about language use intelligently (in the US Jan Freeman of the Boston Globe is another example).

[JuanTwoThree]

Stephen, straying off topic, I'm aware of the well-trodden paths in the arguments about double genitives and I don't for a moment suggest that there is anything wrong with "a friend of Dorothy's". The analogy with a "a friend of mine" doesn't alter the fact that both strike me as oddities in a language that eschews redundancy as much as English does.

As for your opinion about "don't" and "didn't" I suppose I haven't written anything for decades where their use would be inappropriate, but I still can't see them being entirely suitable in some written contexts. It's of little importance.

May I raise the spectre of "usedn't to" whose existence and use is certainly attested though its first google resultst all seem to be questioning this?

I notice that if I say "usedn't to" it's /yewznt/. Which muddies the waters of the assertion that the "use" in "I used to" is connected with the /yewss/ of "What's the use?" and not the /yewz/ of "used cars".

Keeping the thread vaguely on-topic, are there any other double pasts similar to "didn't used to" or indeed any more examples of redundancy in English?

[Stephen Jones]

I think you're forgetting the reason for the double genitive here. Much to the disappointment of one of my Spanish students, you can't use 'of' as an alternative to the possessive in many cases in English. These examples are wrong
*The trousers of John
*The finger of my wife

The 'of' in a friend of John's is partitive as in
One of three or a page of my diary. The apostrophe 's indicates possession.

That is to say we have a double genitive because we have two separate genitives, a partitive genitive and a possessive genitive in the same phrase.