I used not to play football.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:48 am

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

Don't get me wrong. There may be cogent logic for doing it your way. I just said that the logic you presented me wasn't that cogent logic, provided there be any. Probably neither of our ways possess logic that's capable of being that cogent, in which case we may have to rely solely on common usage.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:53 pm

...We don't have an independently legitimate verb root for used to.

That's an interesting point, but are you then saying that the used in used to isn't a verb? Are you saying it's a semi-modal like the ought in ought to, which just happens to end (e)d? Are you saying it's just an oddity on its own?

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:10 pm

I'm not sure what it is; I'm just making the observation. I believe Burchfield mentions an author (which looks Norwegian or Danish to me) who talks about what kind of verb it is. I'll try to look up that name later this week.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:06 am

Alan Kirkness, in his chapter on Lexicography in the [i]Blackwell Handbook of AL[/i], of monolingual learner dictionaries wrote: The entries on the semi-modal verb used to illustrate differing treatments of the relatively uncommon negative forms used not to, didn't use to and didn't used to, which are attested 12, 17 and 25 times respectively in the BNC. ... They are all very much less frequent than never used to, which has 141 tokens spread over 96 texts in the BNC and thus appeals as the preferred form to teach learners of English.

(The MLDs that he draws upon are the Collins COBUILD 2001 (CCEDAL), CIDE (1995), LDOCE3 (1995), Macmillan (2002) and OALDCE6 (2000)).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:22 am

Jotham, what's so "contrived" about '(didn't +) use to'? It makes perfect sense logically, and orthographically - the same pronunciation of 'use to' and 'used to' is surely even more reason to differentiate them in their spelling (since when did homophonous items need to be spelt the same way? Night versus knight versus nite etc); and so what if 'use' (v (; n)) - for all practical purposes an unrelated and, yes, non-phrasal form - has discernably different pronunciations in its base/present versus past form? Thank God it too has differing spellings!:lol::idea:;):roll:8)

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:20 am

fluffyhamster wrote:It makes perfect sense logically, and orthographically - the same pronunciation of 'use to' and 'used to' is surely even more reason to differentiate them in their spelling

I'm not sure what the big hullabaloo is about pronunciation. Think about it: you're arguing that the pronunciation is the same, so why not spell them differently. I'm arguing that the pronunciation is the same, so why not spell them the same. Which one makes more sense? Believe me — pronunciation isn't your strong point...if it's even a point. Your best off arguing about verb conjugation.

(since when did homophonous items need to be spelt the same way? Night versus knight versus nite etc)...:idea:;):roll:8)

Used to isn't a "homophonous item." Knight and night aren't homophonous because someone thought "how quaint; let's have variety," and made homophones; night comes from nacht and knight comes from knecht. But variety is nice, when they make sense, and enjoy popular usage.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:41 am

Now here's an interesting reply to my question regarding what preceded "used to", i.e. pre-1303:

Before "used to" was used, it was "wont to."

This dates back to 888 with Aelfred's Boeth. In the Life of Gideon J. Bruce wrote "He who had wont to come to the patriarchs... had actually come to him (1870). Earlier in 1595 there's a quote in the OED that reads "One of his good dames... who had wont to bestow the best roome... in her house on him."

In 1175 Lamb wrote "Vre drihten wile cumen and wile for-berne alle his fon and heom thet beoth iwunede uuel to done."

Prior to "used to" they used "wont to" and before that "wont." Before that, the English is heavily germanic and not romantic and therefore more difficult to read/understand/use.

Source AllExperts.com

Note the use of "wont" before "wont to".

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:43 am

and thus appeals as the preferred form to teach learners of English.

Why so? Teach all those forms, right, Fluff?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:59 am

Jotham, perhaps it comes from my having studied Chinese and Japanese, but I prefer visually distinct forms when the same sound has two or more meanings (and if you've ever tried to read English wholly in IPA for long, you'll know what I'm on about here); that being said, I don't mind a sprinkling of homographs either, because it helps balance writing between the two types of efficiency. Anyway my point is that the orthography (not quite the same thing as pronunciation - and it's you who's been making the hullaballo! - especially when visually differing forms are homophonous (in a non-technical sense i.e. 'homophonous', note an adjective rather than noun, was simply to save on the lengthier 'sound the same')) can and most here seem to feel should (be made and used to) reflect meaning differences (yes, of "conjugation". 'Finiteness' might be the better concept). But feel free to continue with your fight to overhaul the language and impose "standards" (I wonder if you'll one day be championing /nait/ for both 'night' and 'knight'. BTW, I was aware that they entered English by seperate routes.).

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:34 pm

fluffyhamster wrote:and it's you who's been making the hullaballo!

Yes, because it helps my side! I just don't understand why your side would be going on about it.

But feel free to continue with your fight to overhaul the language and impose "standards"

Me?

Wouldn't that be the case when your way is the least popular?

perhaps it comes from my having studied Chinese and Japanese, but I prefer visually distinct forms when the same sound has two or more meanings

Yes, pictographs are a much more efficient reading system to be emulated. But really, Japanese and Chinese are fascinating. I've been studying them for eight years myself.

in a non-technical sense i.e. 'homophonous', note an adjective rather than noun, was simply to save on the lengthier 'sound the same'

And is homophone too short?

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:38 pm

metal56 wrote:Now here's an interesting reply to my question regarding what preceded "used to", i.e. pre-1303:

Yes, that is interesting. I never thought of that. So those examples are had wont to. Couldn't you say he was wont to? And are there examples of didn't wont to?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:46 pm

I prefer 'morphosyllabogram' to 'pictograph' etc.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:31 pm

Metal, I'll teach more than just the most frequent exponent(s) for a given function, but I prefer the "alternatives" to be actually fulfilling genuinely differing functions (but obviously there is overlap between various forms and functions) - you've heard me bang on before about the gaps (holes) there are in many if not most courses (so why spend time learning to say the same thing in more than a couple of ways? That being said, I'm not opposed when time allows the study of more variety).
Regarding the forms on this thread, I agree that 'I used to not...' appears to overlap with 'wouldn't', but what of simply 'didn't' (=didn't/never used to?), or indeed 'refused to', 'hated (?to/-ing)' etc. There could be disagreement among informants (isn't there always) - corpus analysis might well be required.
One thing I will say though is that to me, 'never used to' implies that now one does, so here we immediately have one of those cases of an "alternative" exponent (to the form and notion of 'didn't use to') having a differing (or at least an additional function, which 'didn't use to' may also possess though perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree).
In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if the "negative form" of '(the) past habit(ual)s' actually has the function it's purported to, and is not simply expressed by means of phrases like 'didn't V (before)' (as Lotus implied on page 1); that is, past habits (non-negative ~) probably find clearer expression more naturally than negatives ('counterfactuals'?).
I'll need to check more closely (I'll start with the dictionary excerpts in Kirkness' chapter).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:37 pm

BTW, nobody seems to like or want to use 'used not to', nor do I, so I won't be teaching that in a hurry.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:33 pm

Oops. I meant to type more (addition is in bold):

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if the "negative form" of '(the) past habit(ual)s' actually has the function it's purported to, and is not simply expressed by means of phrases like 'didn't V (before)' (as Lotus implied on page 1) more often than we suspect (under two hundred occurences total in the BNC of the forms that Kirkness mentions doesn't seem like that many really); that is, past habits (non-negative ~) probably find clearer expression more naturally than negatives ('counterfactuals'?).