I used not to play football.

[jotham]

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

Naw, that's something different. He's warning that you might be using a phrasing that might be associated with more casual conversation: "Our ma didn't use ta tell us yung uns stories befow them early days of no light bulbs." It's beautiful in its own way; just not in a polished prose way.

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

I'll try to look it up at work tomorrow.

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.

No, it's good for them too. Any good writer will be familiar with good writing pirinciples along with the different genres and writing voices that may violate them. They know what the rules are, and when and how best to break them. In fiction, you may need to feature dialects and purposefully break rules to bring dialogues to life. But it's still best to know principles of clear writing when narrating between the dialogues.

[metal56]

Naw, that's something different. He's warning that you might be using a phrasing that might be associated with more casual conversation:

Maybe he should be clearer in his use of terms. Dialect and casual conversation are not the same thing. Strangely enough, his conflation of dialect and casual conversation sounds similar to your defintion of dialect.

I'll try to look it up at work tomorrow.

I'll be here.

But it's still best to know principles of clear writing when narrating between the dialogues.

What is this clear writing thing you keep mentioning?

[jotham]

It's on page 810. I misquoted him in an important way. Encouraging the use of the phrase never used to as a substitute, he says that it doesn't reek of dialect (which word he cross-references to another section of his book.) I guess that implies that the other phrase reeks without really saying it. But doesn't that sound better — that a certain phrase doesn't reek of dialect, than the other phrase reeking of it? That's much more positive. He understands controversial linguistic issues and treats them with kid gloves. He's obviously much more careful with his words than I am. I easily get myself in hot water with my naivety.
Also, he writes about it in the last sentence, which is short. It's written more like an aside than a main point.
In his dialect section, he talks about different definitions of dialect and explains the one he employs for purposes of the book, which isn't the linguist variety. He does mention that the linguist definition "tends to be neutral" and that the common definition "tends to be a depreciative label." He's aware of the issues — much more than I.

[metal56]

But doesn't that sound better — that a certain phrase doesn't reek of dialect, than the other phrase reeking of it.

It sounds like a cop out. Indirectness is the often the plague of academia.

Point is, his statement either way is prescriptive and subject¡ve.

In his dialect section, he talks about different definitions of dialect and explains the one he employs for purposes of the book, which isn't the linguist variety.

Which is it? Is it also your definition of dialect?

[jotham]

Garner says that the linguist definition would include Standard English as a dialect. Garner uses the more common definition, which stresses varieties of English different from Standard English. It isn't the same as my dialect versus accent issue.
Interestingly, when I confuse dialect with accent alone, that seems to go with the definition given in American Heritage, but not in Encarta or Merriam Webster.
American Heritage

1a. A regional or social variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary, especially a variety of speech differing from the standard literary language or speech pattern of the culture in which it exists: *beep* is a dialect of English

Merriam-Webster

a : a regional variety of language distinguished by features of vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation from other regional varieties and constituting together with them a single language

[metal56]

Interestingly, when I confuse dialect with accent alone, that seems to go with the definition given in American Heritage, but not in Encarta or Merriam Webster.

Or indeed not that given by Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia.

And/or are pretty similar in some contexts. Anyway, is Garner - a grammatician and not a dialectician, let's remember - saying that everything apart from Standard English is dialect?

[jotham]

Or indeed not that given by Funk and Wagnall’s Encyclopedia.

That is Encarta. I believe they bought the rights to it, or something like that. There's some connection there.

And/or are pretty similar in some contexts.

But not this context. If you said and, then accent alone isn't enough to categorize a dialect. It apparently would be enough with or.

Anyway, is Garner - a grammatician and not a dialectician, let's remember - saying that everything apart from Standard English is dialect?

Garner's not saying that the one he chose for the book is the right definition for everyone. He's saying that for purposes of the book — which is to help writers' skill in Standard English — for greater clarity, he uses the definition he does.

[metal56]

Garner's not saying that the one he chose for the book is the right definition for everyone. He's saying that for purposes of the book — which is to help writers' skill in Standard English — for greater clarity, he uses the definition he does

.

Let's hope that the majority of those who buy the book will read his explanation. If not, we'll have another 50 years or so of ESL teachers and learners thinking that everything outs¡de Standard English is a dialect and reeks.

[JuanTwoThree]

Going back to "grammatical justification".

The difference between "I didn't use to play football" and "I used not to play football" should be that the lack of do-support would make the "used not to" form more modal. Where do-support has been resisted to a greater or lesser extent has been in verbs with some or a lot of modality: I suppose not, I daren't, I oughtn't to etc

http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... =dosupport

So can anybody hear a nuance of difference between the two forms?
It's not irrelevant that questions can be made with "used to" "Used he to smoke?



On to the subject of "I didn't used to". This is plain wrong, however widespread it may be.

By the way I find the whole business of "I never used to" a bit silly. For a start it doesn't work as well with states:

"I live in Spain but I never used to"

I much prefer "but I didn't use to" or "I used not to"

and anyway it's a bit much to invent a problem (the perceived elegance or not of "I didn't use to", which I personally find has no reek of anything, but then I don't have to worry about sounding like a hill-billy) and then "solve" it. It's like inventing a new body odour and then selling the deodorant for it, when there was no smell in the first place.

[jotham]

Your own Burchfield weighs in a little bit. He doesn't tackle the d issue in didn't used to; he seems neutral on it since his examples showcase both. But he says this:

The main types are:
e. (Only used in very informal contexts) With do-support in negative and/or interrogative constructions: He didn't use to wear gloves — P. Cheney, 1964;...Prostate cancer...didn't used to be a problem — Times, 1995.
f. (Now regarded as somewhat formal) Without do-support in negative and/or interrogative constructions: He used not to dream — N. Bawden, 1987.

[metal56]

On to the subject of "I didn't used to". This is plain wrong, however widespread it may be.

Are "I didn't need to/have to/want to/like to/wont to" also all wrong?

So can anybody hear a nuance of difference between the two forms?

Nope. If it's more modal, for what purpose is it so?

"I live in Spain but I never used to"

I much prefer "but I didn't use to" or "I used not to"

Even then, it's would be an odd thing to say.

which I personally find has no reek of anything

The only thing it reeks of is Garner's dislike for it.

It's amazing how far one can get with reeking language. Father Bush went all the way to The White House on it.

'Old friends say Bush's handwritten notes have become more thoughtful than usual, and longer as well. In recent weeks, Bush has been positively confessional in public, extending press briefings beyond normal time limits and having full conversations with strangers when a handshake or a photograph used to be the order of the day. It isn't only because he wants to prove that he is healthy enough to handle the job, though he has certainly worked hard at that. Bush is talking about himself more, how he's feeling mentally, and why. As Bush told an aide last week, "I didn't use to do that kind of stuff."'

The White House: In a Sentimental Mood
Monday, Jun. 17, 1991 By MICHAEL DUFFY/WASHINGTON. Time magazine.

[JuanTwoThree]

"I didn't used to" is wrong because that "used" simply doesn't have a "d". It may be as widespread as "it's" for "its" but I don't care.

I absolutely agree that you can't hear whether or not there's a "d". But you can't hear the "d" in "I've refused to", which doesn't mean that it isn't there this time.

Nope, neither can I. Which is strange because no do-support can usually be explained.

Maybe "I used not to" survived the arrival of do-support because nobody was sure if "I didn't use to" had a "d" at the end

[jotham]

It may be as widespread as "it's" for "its" but I don't care.

That's a statement that descriptivists try to peg prescriptivists with.

I absolutely agree that you can't hear whether or not there's a "d". But you can't hear the "d" in "I've refused to", which doesn't mean that it isn't there this time.

The t sound isn't the crux of the pronunciation argument; but rather the s versus z sound. Refuse has a z sound regardless of present or past tense. Use does too when used normally. It's when employed in this special idiomatic way (i.e., used to do something) that the z is lost regardless of usage, regardless of do-support — which is why grammarians say the idiom is fixed in spelling as it is in pronunciation.

[JuanTwoThree]

It's a standoff. Some would have us believe that there is a "d" in "I didn't use to smoke" although you can't hear it because there is a "d" in "I used to smoke" although you can't hear it.

Others, including me, say that you just know. I know there isn't a "d" in "I didn't use to smoke" in the same way that I know that there is a "d" in "The medical I've passed to get this job" and not in "The medical I'll have to pass to get this job" even though I pronounce "passed to get" and "pass to get" exactly the same.

[jotham]

It's a standoff. Some would have us believe that there is a "d" in "I didn't use to smoke" although you can't hear it because there is a "d" in "I used to smoke" although you can't hear it.

There's no standoff on this point: grammarians point to pronunciation of s and z; linguists point to verb-tense protocol, not pronunciation.
Although Stephen Jones hinted that he (and others) pronounce it differently. I'm curious how they pronounce this: He didn't use(d) to do that.