I used not to play football.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:30 pm

so why spend time learning to say the same thing in more than a couple of ways?

As I've always said of you, Fluff, you seem to focus only on what the student will say and not what he/she will need to interpret.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:29 pm

Well, I don't think a student who's met 'I never used to/didn't use to play football' is going to have much of a problem (if they indeed ever encounter it) with 'I used to not/not to play football' (bear in mind also that they'll have met many grammatically positive examples of 'used to'); but then, a range of three patterns for selected contexts is hardly input overkill, granted. All this rather assumes however that such simple examples are truly representative and helpful, but as I've intimated above, maybe real usages point less to a "simple past" and more forward, to another point in time either further forward in the past or to now, the moment of speaking; and the span between the two reference points could be regarding real and possibly surprising change.
I'd prefer therefore to look at better examples (i.e. dripping with context and exuding functionality) than argue whether decontextualized variant A is generally "better" (more "grammatical" blah blah blah) than B (or C or D or E or...), if that's alright with you.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:09 pm

What I'm saying is that if we teach 'I didn't use to play soccer' then we'd better prepare students for listener responses along the lines of 'Oh, and now you play?'. 'Used to'='Before'; 'not use to/never used to'="Not before but 'now' instead"? Which leaves 'used to not', which might be a 'wouldn't' substitute (scope of negation, anyone?).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:04 pm

Only three out of a total of thirteen relevant examples in the dictionaries mentioned earlier have a strong "past directionality/orientation":

CCED: He didn't used to like anyone walking on the lawn. (=didn't like)

CIDE: When we were younger we used not to be allowed coffee to drink. (=weren't allowed)

MED: We didn't use to earn much.(=didn't earn)

The other ten examples all explicitly show or strongly imply a connection to a later time in which the state of affairs is the opposite of that of the past.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:08 pm

One could also continue with another negative: I didn't (use to) play, and I still don't.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:12 pm

I'll shut up now.:lol:8)

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:01 pm

I'd prefer therefore to look at better examples (i.e. dripping with context and exuding functionality) than argue whether decontextualized variant A is generally "better" (more "grammatical" blah blah blah) than B (or C or D or E or...), if that's alright with you.

Again, do you judge functionality only by that which the student will "need" to say? If a certain item helps/will help me interpret a certain text, is that item functional?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:04 pm

What I'm saying is that if we teach 'I didn't use to play soccer' then we'd better prepare students for listener responses along the lines of 'Oh, and now you play?'.

And if we teach "I used to live here when I was at university", should we prepare students for the answer "And now you've moved back?".

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 2:12 pm

Which is a more precise description of "never use to/didn't use to", 1. or 2.?

1.

(i)The situation wasn't true in the past.
(ii) It is true at the moment of speaking.

2.

(i) The statement wasn't true for a period in the past.
(ii) For a period subsequent to that during which the statement wasn't true, the statement was/is true.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:18 pm

metal wrote:Again, do you judge functionality only by that which the student will "need" to say? If a certain item helps/will help me interpret a certain text, is that item functional?

The point I think is that the decontextualized 'I...?...play football' wasn't helping me at least to assign function; there seemed to be easy assumptions lurking and potentially clouding things, assumptions that to my mind had to be cleared.

And if we teach "I used to live here when I was at university", should we prepare students for the answer "And now you've moved back?".

It's negative forms that are the problem.

Which is a more precise description of "never use to/didn't use to", 1. or 2.?
Quote:
1.
(i)The situation wasn't true in the past.
(ii) It is true at the moment of speaking.
2.
(i) The statement wasn't true for a period in the past.
(ii) For a period subsequent to that during which the statement wasn't true, the statement was/is true.

I wonder if the longer of the two could be the more cautious and therefore precise...but seriously, provided the selection of examples offered to students is representative of real-life ratios (i.e. there's an appropriate balance of past<>past/"now" and past<>present examples), are such rules needed? (If there are any rules to become "writ", individual teachers and students might arrive at them on their own).

Wait, 2 perhaps "overgenerates" (in an overactive mind): 'I never used to like him, but after I got to know him better I was crazy about him, for a while...mind you, now I don't like him anymore/again. I was totally mistaken about his good points. How could I have been so blind about him not just once but twice?!'. Two spans of change?! I never used to be this fat, but wait, no, actually there was a time (in between) when I was even fatter.

Anyway, my concern rather is if the ratio of examples that have that strong "past directionality/orientation" also seems to others here to hold constant at 3:10 (23%).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:10 pm

BTW by 'assumptions' I mean those that a casual reader might have made: that short detached sentences like 'I didn't use to play football' abound (or should), and that the negative form there is "simply" the semantic as well as "grammatical" (structural) opposite of (simple past) 'used to'.
I just find it interesting that although nothing can really ever be divorced from a moment of speaking and so perhaps technically isn't, only one of those three dictionary examples that I gave earlier didn't seem to cry out (alright, 'whimper' then) for actual textual expansion (to some later point in time) to fill the cognitive void that might arise and flicker (it wouldn't be odd if the guy still didn't like people trampling his lawns-no change of heart in this selfish giant; he could in fact be dead now and the subject of reminiscences about him (this could help explain the use of 'use to' "on top of" 'didn't like', maybe it's a semantically bleached analogue twitch copy of the positive, also used to reminisce, 'used to', 'owzat for a theory!!)) - and in all probability they were expanded (but it's hard to be certain, given the constraints on the length of examples/on context in dictionaries).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 3:27 am

I thought of 'wasn't always' as a possible substitute for ("past oriented") 'didn't use to' for some reason, yet then recalled that the former is in Batman Begins: "I wasn't always here in the mountains: once I had a wife-my great love-but she was...taken* from me....." (*=murdered)

> ?I didn't use to be here in the mountains.
??I never used to be here in the mountains (=was never around?! Not much of a ninja leader,then!:lol:).

I'm obviously hoping to strengthen my previous argument here (that 'didn't use to' and 'never used to' don't "point backwards/pastwards"), but would be interested to hear if I've overlooked something.

Getting back towards everyone's favorite hobby of "Prescriptivist-Grammarian-Man spanking", what do you guys make of the following interesting twist (from The Grammar Book, Second Edition):

Used to is an inflected past tense. ..... There is some dialectal variation here in that native speakers represent questions and negatives with used to differently. Some write the prescriptively-favored "Did you use to?" "You didn't use to" while others write "Did you used to?" "You didn't used to". For the second group, used to is on its way to becoming more of an intermediate frozen form like ought to, whereas the first group still views used to as a normally inflected past-tense form. The second group is probably indicating a future change.

(My bold and underlining; former indicates, to me, unclear or controversial phrasing).

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:43 am

I wonder if the longer of the two could be the more cautious and therefore precise...but seriously, provided the selection of examples offered to students is representative of real-life ratios (i.e. there's an appropriate balance of past<>past/"now" and past<>present examples), are such rules needed?

Who's talking about rules? They are descriptions of use. Many people like descriptions of use.

provided the selection of examples offered to students is representative of real-life ratios (i.e. there's an appropriate balance of past<>past/"now" and past<>present examples),

Problem is, most language classes do not provide a balance. That's why most students can only recite "rule" number 1. above.

Wait, 2 perhaps "overgenerates" (in an overactive mind):

Your "overgenerates" example sounds like contextualised native-speaker English. Do you prefer examples and "rule" which undergenerate?

Anyway, my concern rather is if the ratio of examples that have that strong "past directionality/orientation" also seems to others here to hold constant at 3:10 (23%).

If so, what use is that information in the classroom?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:48 am

Which answer, if any, would you commonly/automatically find yourself using?

Davy (to Suzy) Hey, Stevie used to jerk off three times a day.
Suzy: Really?
Stevie: I never!

Davy (to Suzy) Hey, Stevie used to jerk off three times a day.
Suzy: Really?
Stevie: I did not (didn't)!

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:03 am

I thought of 'wasn't always' as a possible substitute for ("past oriented") 'didn't use to' for some reason, yet then recalled that the former is in Batman Begins: "I wasn't always here in the mountains: once I had a wife-my great love-but she was...taken* from me....." (*=murdered)

To me, the first example below sounds "incorrect".

*? I wasn't always here in the mountains.
I wasn't always here/there for them
It wasn't always this way.

<I'm obviously hoping to strengthen my previous argument here (that 'didn't use to' and 'never used to' don't "point backwards/pastwards"), but would be interested to hear if I've overlooked something.

Of course they do.

The second group is probably indicating a future change.

OMG! That means we'll also have to take on "Did you eat yet?" and other such horrible excuses for good grammar.

Why can't folks admit that "used to", in negative and question forms, is just a question of hypercorrection. Or have we lost the ability to judge when something smells fishy in usage? Do we now just say "Well, it's used by quite a lot of folks so it must be OK"?

There is some dialectal variation here in that native speakers represent questions and negatives with used to differently.

What's the problem with the use of the word "dialectal" there?