Page 1 of 2
Is "would" used for discontinued habits always nos
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:20 pm
by Andrew Patterson
Textbooks like to say that "used to" implies the plain fact that something was true in the past but (probably) isn't any more; and that "would" implies nostalgia.
"Would" of course can't be used with stative verbs.
I recently came across a sentence in the book "Ready for First certificate" that made me think that "would" is not always nostalgic. (The passage is about a woman who used to be a minder for teenage models):
Some parents would let their children go alone to fashion shoots.
That's not something I could imagine a minder getting nostalgic about.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:10 am
by Richard
I fear that the authors of those textbooks are confusing
would and
wood.
It is perfectly possible to be nostalgic about wood, especially the beautiful old carved decorations in traditional homes in Asia and Europe.
I myself can't get very nostalgic about
would.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:25 am
by woodcutter
Perhaps we could say it is always used for reminiscing, be it positive or negative.
Re: Is "would" used for discontinued habits always
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:44 am
by metal56
Andrew Patterson wrote:Textbooks like to say that "used to" implies the plain fact that something was true in the past but (probably) isn't any more; and that "would" implies nostalgia.
"Would" of course can't be used with stative verbs.
I recently came across a sentence in the book "Ready for First certificate" that made me think that "would" is not always nostalgic. (The passage is about a woman who used to be a minder for teenage models):
Some parents would let their children go alone to fashion shoots.
That's not something I could imagine a minder getting nostalgic about.
It's normally the full collocation "would (often) go to " that gets the nostalgia reading.
He would insist on buying buy flowers for me. (?Irritation)
We would (often) go to the beach on Sunday. (?Nostalgia)
Re: Is "would" used for discontinued habits always
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:05 am
by Lorikeet
metal56 wrote:
He would insist on buying buy flowers for me. (?Irritation)
We would (often) go to the beach on Sunday. (?Nostalgia)
What about:
He would often insist on buying flowers for me. (Irritated Nostalgia? :p)
Re: Is "would" used for discontinued habits always
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:39 am
by metal56
Lorikeet wrote:metal56 wrote:
He would insist on buying buy flowers for me. (?Irritation)
We would (often) go to the beach on Sunday. (?Nostalgia)
What about:
He would often insist on buying flowers for me. (Irritated Nostalgia? :p)
LOL! Maybe.
Re: Is "would" used for discontinued habits always
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:43 am
by metal56
Andrew Patterson wrote:Textbooks like to say that "used to" implies the plain fact that something was true in the past but (probably) isn't any more; and that "would" implies nostalgia.
It's also because would sounds more literary and than "used to".
On summer mornings, Fortesque would take himself toward the mountains.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:10 am
by lolwhites
It takes more than one modal to tell us about someone's feelings.
Context, context, context....
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:44 am
by fluffyhamster
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:01 pm
by Stephen Jones
I don't think we can go further than to say that 'would' is, like 'used to', used for repeated action in the past.
Anything else is gilding the lily.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:51 pm
by Andrew Patterson
Thank you everyone who replied, there have been some interesting ones.
Richard feels that one can only be nostalgic about wood.
Woodcutter/Wouldcutter said that "would" refers to reminiscences either good or bad. I've looked round for a good definition of "reminisce" and related words, but haven't found anything satisfactory so I'll try to define it myself.
One has to remember in order to say what someone used to do so how is that different? We all know the look of someone who is reminiscing - there is an emotional element to it, it's like the person is imagining themselves back in the time and place where something happened and is dwelling on their memories. This is different to relating a plain fact where one would use "used to". I think you're definitely on to sth here!
Metal mentioned irritation. We talk about someone being willful, and "would is the remote form of "will". Maybe this is another one for that long thread - the core meaning of "will".
Lorikeet, I'm sorry, but I think "irritated nostalgia" is an oxymoron. Maybe you mean "irritated reminiscence".
Metal's second post mentioned literary use. Perhaps "would" is slightly old-fashioned too - like the contrast between "ought to" and "should" Some say that "ought to" is slightly old-fashioned.
Thank you Fluffyhamster for the old thread.
Sorry, though, Lolwhites, but whatever else I don't think there words are so synonymous that trying to differentiate them is like guilding the lilly. That might be true for "in spite of" vs "despite", for instance, but I don't think that it is true here.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:36 pm
by lolwhites
Sorry, though, Lolwhites, but whatever else I don't think there words are so synonymous that trying to differentiate them is like guilding the lilly.
Did I say that?
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:04 pm
by Andrew Patterson
Whoops, I meant to say "these words" meaning "would" and "used to".
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:48 pm
by Lorikeet
Andrew Patterson wrote:
Lorikeet, I'm sorry, but I think "irritated nostalgia" is an oxymoron. Maybe you mean "irritated reminiscence".
Actually, I just meant it as a joke, since you could put the two points together that Metal had mentioned. I don't see the distinction.
Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 9:33 pm
by Andrew Patterson
I wrote quoting Lorikeet:
I'm sorry, but I think "irritated nostalgia" is an oxymoron. Maybe you mean "irritated reminiscence".
and Lorikeet replied:
Actually, I just meant it as a joke, since you could put the two points together that Metal had mentioned. I don't see the distinction.Actually, I just meant it as a joke, since you could put the two points together that Metal had mentioned. I don't see the distinction.
I think the distinction here is that "nostalgia" is a longing for something from the past, and "reminiscence" is dwelling on the past and (usually)communicating what you remember of it to someone else.
By definition, nostalgia can only be for something you liked or at the very least now think that you liked. (The memory can play tricks.) Or even didn't like at the time, but now do. Something that irritated you in the past and still does can't be nostalgia and this is why I called irritated nostalgia an oxymoron.
Reminiscence on the other hand can be about positive or negative experiences. I don't think it's funny to put the two ideas together at all as long as it is "irritated reminiscence" rather than "irritated nostalgia".
Hope that clears it up Laurie.