I used not to play football.

[JuanTwoThree]

I'm using the pronunciation as my guide too.

I don't pronounce the "d" in "I used to smoke" but I know it's there. How do I do that?

I use the same logic to say that "I didn't use to smoke" hasn't got a "d". How? In exactly the same way.


Jotham, how would you write this question?

"Did you use to smoke?"

With a "d"? How does it look to you?

[jotham]

I'm using the pronunciation as my guide too.
I don't pronounce the "d" in "I used to smoke" but I know it's there. How do I do that?
I use the same logic to say that "I didn't use to smoke" hasn't got a "d". How? In exactly the same way.

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind that. Taking that logic, you could also say "I use to smoke." And according to Burchfield, this is an informal way some people do. I also don't see how that logic forbids "I didn't used to smoke." I'm going on the premise that there is no pronunciation difference — are you going on the premise that there is a difference, like Stephen Jones talked about? And if there is a difference, does that somehow contribute to the cogency of the logic I have yet to fathom?

Jotham, how would you write this question?
"Did you use to smoke?"
With a "d"? How does it look to you?

Well, five years back, I believed the dictionaries and thought it was written correctly above and would have told others so. When I realized that this was a point of contention and that reputable writers, editors, and publications, apparently American and British, employ the other way, I changed my writing as well, and encourage others so — and this because I pride myself in being a good writer and editor: I wouldn't want to be different from my fellow editors in the editing community. It's one small way of showing my editing knowledge and acumen to those whose opinions matter to me.
How would it look to me without the aid or influence of descriptive dictionaries or prescriptive guides? It's been so long since I've tried — I really couldn't honestly tell you. I'm guessing if I were looking at the surface of things, I would assume it acted as a regular verb and would conjugate it accordingly.

[JuanTwoThree]

No, at least we both agree that there is no pronunciation difference.

But you know that there is a d at the end of "used" in "I used to smoke" although you can't hear that there is, don't you? Why? Because there just should be (and because that's what you've seen written).

There should be a d at the end in "Until a few years ago I use to smoke" although you can't hear that there is. Why? Because there just should be (and because that's what you've seen written).

There can't be a d at the end in "I didn't use to smoke" although this time you can't hear that there isn't. Why? Because there just shouldn't be and this time what you've often also seen written (I didn't used to to smoke) is as wrong as "Every dog has it's day", which you've also often seen written.

Same logic in each case.

So what makes you think that "I didn't used to smoke" is correct and even preferable to "I didn't use to smoke"? English doesn't double up on past time markers. I can't find a coherent defence of "I didn't used to" anywhere.

[lolwhites]

This thread started with the question "what's the grammatical justification for used not to?". So what's the grammatical justification for *didn't used to? I see the -(e)d in used to as a past marker, so surely *didn't used to is just as wrong as, say, *didn't went. If a student wrote *I didn't went you'd correct them, so why wouldn't you do the same with *I didn't used to?

[JuanTwoThree]

I agree with you. There seem to be plenty of grudging acceptances that people do in fact say "I didn't used to" but nobody seems to actually prefer it.

If anything googling "didn't used to"+"didn't use to" reveals a lot of people saying that the double past is less satisfactory:


www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionarie ... 82988.html

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

I'm surprised, Jotham, that your journey of discovery led you from "I didn't use to smoke" to "I didn't used to smoke" and not the other way round.

[JuanTwoThree]

Some stuff here:

http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/dialect/habitual.htm

[jotham]

But you know that there is a d at the end of "used" in "I used to smoke" although you can't hear that there is, don't you? Why? Because there just should be (and because that's what you've seen written).
There should be a d at the end in "Until a few years ago I use to smoke" although you can't hear that there is. Why? Because there just should be (and because that's what you've seen written).
There can't be a d at the end in "I didn't use to smoke" although this time you can't hear that there isn't. Why? Because there just shouldn't be and this time what you've often also seen written (I didn't used to to smoke) is as wrong as "Every dog has it's day", which you've also often seen written.
Same logic in each case.

You are randomly assigning and removing d's according to your preconceptions of where you think they should be and presumably claiming that the logic of undistinguishable pronunciation somehow proves such preconceptions right. But I could use the same logic to "prove" my own preconceptions and that of other editors. A logic that "proves" everything, really proves nothing.
The d pronunciation is a red herring. Linguists use the argument only to declare pronunciation a useless guide for spelling in deference to principles of verb conjugation. But grammarians point out that pronunciation is indeed a useful guide; and they point to the s and z difference in pronunciation.
Look at these sentences that showcase the normal usage of use:
That's what I (didn't) use to make clay.
That's what I used to make paper.
In both these sentences, where the z sound is used, the presence or absence of d is carefully distinguished in our pronunciation — despite the proximal t sound — to make our tense (and ourselves) understandable. This pronunciation difference is justifiably reflected in the spelling.
In the idiom used to, however, where the s sound is used, the d is not distinguished. Indeed the pronunciation is fixed; thus the idiom is fixed as is the spelling:
He used to make clay.
He didn't used to make clay.

So what makes you think that "I didn't used to smoke" is correct and even preferable to "I didn't use to smoke"? English doesn't double up on past time markers. I can't find a coherent defence of "I didn't used to" anywhere.

Google (These figures were cited on August 17; they will change from day to day.):
Didn't use to has 128,000 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=I ... +use+to%22
Didn't used to has 287,000 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl ... used+to%22
Never used to has 767,000 hits.
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl ... used+to%22

The difference is even starker when looking at edited newspapers (in the last thirty days):
Didn't use to has 28 hits.
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl= ... +use+to%22
Didn't used to has 85 hits.
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl= ... used+to%22
Never used to has 161 hits
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl= ... used+to%22

[JuanTwoThree]

When a verb finishes with an unvoiced consonant the "d" is pronounced as a "t": stopped, passed, rocked and so on.

So when the next word begins with a "t" you have to decide if the "d" that is pronounced as a "t" (anyway) is there or not although you can't always hear it:

"Yesterday I passed ten trucks".

"Every day I pass ten trucks"

"Do you stock Transformer toys"

Well, last year we stocked Transformers"


These decisions are made constantly:

Is it "Ice tea" or "Iced tea"? Using your argument that "where the s sound is used, the d is not distinguished. Indeed the pronunciation is fixed; thus the idiom is fixed as is the spelling" it would have to be "ice tea", which I don't think it is. My mind processes the sounds and decides that a silent letter is there. Same with "It's lambing time again"

It's just not a convincing argument for two past markers together. I could use your argument to say:

"I stopped to think for a moment"

"Why did you stopped to think?"

After all " the d is not distinguished.... the pronunciation is fixed; thus the idiom is fixed as is the spelling".

So I don't buy the idea that the unvoiced s means that the d is necessarily there all the time.

Nevertheless, the Googling is a bit of a poser. It's not really a coherent defence of the structure though.

However much I dislike it I am prepared to accept that three-quarters of writers (careful or otherwise) favour "didn't used to" so it's out there. Like "a friend of John's": I don't care for it but I can't get away from it and it has a long history.

Without your pronunciation argument we both have to agree that "didn't used to" is correct because a lot of people do it like that.

[metal56]

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind that. Taking that logic, you could also say "I use to smoke." And according to Burchfield, this is an informal way some people do.

Do you mean "write", where you put "say"?

I would assume it acted as a regular verb and would conjugate it accordingly.

So would you employ the "d" in the negative and in questions or not?

[jotham]

Using your argument that "where the s sound is used, the d is not distinguished.

You misunderstood me here. I tried to write this carefully, but I still could have written it better. I intended a non-restrictive usage for the phrase where the s sound is used, and had it in commas on purpose because I was wanting to merely add information about the phrase without defining anything or establishing set patterns or correlations. I didn't mean to say that every word that has an s sound will necessarily have undistinguished d's. Nor did I mean that every word that has a z sound will have distinguished d's. I was just pointing out that in this specific case, the parallel exists and is useful for showing that we are dealing with an idiom here, not a regular verb.

[jotham]

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind that. Taking that logic, you could also say "I use to smoke." And according to Burchfield, this is an informal way some people do.

Do you mean "write", where you put "say"?

Precisely.

[metal56]

But you know that there is a d at the end of "used" in "I used to smoke" although you can't hear that there is, don't you? Why? Because there just should be (and because that's what you've seen written).

I don't see many people worrying about the "b" in "comb".

I can't find a coherent defence of "I didn't used to" anywhere.

It doesn't exist.

[metal56]

This thread started with the question "what's the grammatical justification for used not to?". So what's the grammatical justification for *didn't used to? I see the -(e)d in used to as a past marker, so surely *didn't used to is just as wrong as, say, *didn't went. If a student wrote *I didn't went you'd correct them, so why wouldn't you do the same with *I didn't used to?

Exactly.

[metal56]

In the idiom used to, however, where the s sound is used, the d is not distinguished. Indeed the pronunciation is fixed; thus the idiom is fixed as is the spelling:
He used to make clay.
He didn't used to make clay.

Jotham, go back a few hundred years and ask why grammarians and ordinary users did not suggest using the "d" in the negative and in questions. Why they didn't employ your take on it?

[jotham]

I see the -(e)d in used to as a past marker,

That may be where the analogy breaks down. Whereever there's a past marker, there should be a present marker, a root or infinitive form, able to be used independently. But in the special verb/idiom case of used to with the s pronunciation, there is no independent root, infinitive, or present. It's fixed in the conceptual past. We can't legitimately employ this verb in the infinitive form independently, like "I use to make coffee." The present tense or root just simply doesn't exist on it's own. But some try to invent the root form out of thin air just so they can appease their displeasure at superficially seeing it "oddly" combined with didn't. And so they content themselves with this specially contrived root form that's legitimate apparently only when combined with didn't, but nowhere else.
(One Australian grammarian even goes so far as to say that "didn't used to" is impossible and should never be used. Being Australian, he may be comfortable with saying used not to, but this option just doesn't do it for Americans. Our choices are narrowed to never used to.)

so surely *didn't used to is just as wrong as, say, *didn't went. If a student wrote *I didn't went you'd correct them, so why wouldn't you do the same with *I didn't used to?

We wouldn't say "I didn't went," but rather "I didn't go." That's because go is an independently legitimate verb root. We can use it in the present "I go to the market." We don't have an independently legitimate verb root for used to.