I used not to play football.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:12 am

Why the objection to 'rule'? All it would take is the addition of imperative 'use' before the forms, 'when' between them and the points described, and 'and' between the points to come to a principled prescription, thus (I've borrowed your first "formulation"):

Use 'never used to/didn't use to' when (i)the situation wasn't true in the past and (ii) it is true at the moment of speaking.

The prescription is implicit in the description - I think you're being a bit too, hmm, "what's the word", here.

You agree that 'most language classes do not provide a balance' of forms, but almost immediately after then question the relevance of my '23%'. Hmm again...

If "I wasn't always here in the mountains" sounds odd to you, you might like to watch (or rewatch) that scene in the movie.

It sounds very natural in the context given.

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.

I've hopefully said enough about how the moment of speaking is implicitly if not explicitly as much if not more the focus in the majority of examples (for instance, in 'I didn't use to be < >> this fat', the prior "slimness" is of course something that will come to mind, but the present size is clearly more the issue), but I perhaps should've said that the forms 'don't only "point backwards/pastwards" '. Perhaps you can dredge up reams of examples where they clearly and only do just that, but less lame/"incomplete" ones than variations on the one that comprises the thread title, please.

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)!

I'm not sure what the point of your question is. The short answers if expanded would not require 'use to' before 'jerk off (3...)!', and are used in exactly the same way with simple past generally (He called you a *beep* - I never/I did NOT!); but FWIW I'm not sure I have a clear preference between the forms.

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

No, but I do like them to sound like they're not from the mouth of some fey and forgetful f-wit. Glad you liked them, though!:lol:

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:45 am

Oh, what the hell, let's just rely on (con)text, eh - what's added is added. I'd still like to see better examples informing discussions of "grammar", though, in order to make clear exactly what students should be saying rather than implying.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:11 am

The prescription is implicit in the description - I think you're being a bit too, hmm, "what's the word", here.

For me, there is a difference in stance between these:

Use 'never used to/didn't use to' when (i)the situation wasn't true in the past and (ii) it is true at the moment of speaking.

'Never used to/didn't use to' are used when (i)the situation wasn't true in the past and (ii) it is true at the moment of speaking.

You agree that 'most language classes do not provide a balance' of forms, but almost immediately after then question the relevance of my '23%'. Hmm again...

I question how you would apply that 23% in YOUR classes.

It sounds very natural in the context given.

"She gave the money to you and I" sounds "natural" to some folks, but would you teach it in YOUR classes?

(for instance, in 'I didn't use to be < >> this fat', the prior "slimness" is of course something that will come to mind, but the present size is clearly more the issue),

Yes, we know, retrospection. So...? Most cases of "used to" will include the point Now, but this is not always the case. So, would you explain the "other" cases as exceptions? This is the best explanantion of the form I've found: "Used to" differs from the remote form in that it refers to two times - that during which the statement was true, and that during which it was not.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:31 am

Hi again, metal! Sorry, but I was over on the Job forums, and have to dash now. I'll be back by tomorrow though to continue the discussion. Thanks for spending the time so far on this thread.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:52 am

Thanks for spending the time so far on this thread.

Time's for spending, right?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:45 pm

Spotted this today in Chapter 35 of Great Expectations (page 303 of the Penguin Classics edition):

"Now, don't echo," I retorted. "You used not to echo, Biddy"

I know *beep*' characters often speak in "dialect", but as this is Pip (as a gentleman) speaking, I wonder if he is supposed to be speaking "correctly" or slipping into "dialect".

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:01 pm

lolwhites wrote:I know *beep*' characters often speak in "dialect"

Such language. I wonder what Metal will think of this opinion.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:25 pm

I know *beep*' characters often speak in "dialect", but as this is Pip (as a gentleman) speaking, I wonder if he is supposed to be speaking "correctly" or slipping into "dialect.

There ain't no one on this earth who don't "speak" in dialect.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:09 pm

The expletive was, of course D1ckens

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:13 pm

There ain't no one on this earth who don't "speak" in dialect.

I agree entirely, which is why I put the word in inverted commas. Let me put it another way: Do you think Charles D thought his character was speaking "gentleman's" English or his local dialect when he made him say You used not to echo?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:20 pm

Do you think Charles D thought his character was speaking "gentleman's" English or his local dialect when he made him say You used not to echo?

Dunno

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:42 pm

Yes, there is a difference in stance between our versions. Are you saying that you never formulate prescriptions for students to follow?

As for the 23% "finding", well, I am a believer in a "proportional" syllabus (see Sinclair & Renouf's paper) and so would not introduce more than roughly that percentage of that type of "retrospectives" ("pure" ~? As opposed to "semi/partial/comparative" ones? How do these terms strike you?); and obviously I would be looking for the most functionally salient ones I could find. I don't think I've ever quite said or thought of them as exceptions, but anything starved of context cannot but begin to appear ambiguous, problematic and in desperate need of an "airing" (better it's among teachers "first" than in class).

There's a huge difference between "She gave the money to you and I" and the example from 'Batman Begins'. I suppose there were droves following behind you when you walked out of the cinema in disgust the moment that line came up on the screen...but I won't continue giving what seems to be your personal preferences too hard a time.

"Used to" differs from the remote form in that it refers to two times - that during which the statement was true, and that during which it was not.

Actually "past without 'use(d) to'" can achieve the same function/aspect (as others have also pointed out): "I didn't play soccer", as said by an adult years later, versus by young Timmy who's just arrived home.

"I didn't use to play soccer" (...?) can of course achieve the same goal for the adult especiall(some teachers might like to contrast this with the usually sporty as opposed to sedentiary kids), but it's all extra words and, unless a pure retrospective for "old schoolday sports" can be found rather than invented, maybe this particular example at least shouldn't yet make its way into the 23%; and I just sorta like one form, one function. But I must again stress that I'd be looking to incorporate "pure" up to that 23% or so mark.

jotham · Post by **jotham** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:19 pm

lolwhites wrote:I know *beep*' characters often speak in "dialect", but as this is Pip (as a gentleman) speaking, I wonder if he is supposed to be speaking "correctly" or slipping into "dialect".

Do you find the other characters saying it the other way? Can you do a search on both phrases to find an intentional pattern?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 4:55 pm

jotham wrote:Can you do a search on both phrases to find an intentional pattern?

It's the only occurrence in the book.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:17 am

Yes, there is a difference in stance between our versions. Are you saying that you never formulate prescriptions for students to follow?

Only when my boss is around.

As for the 23% "finding", well, I am a believer in a "proportional" syllabus (see Sinclair & Renouf's paper) and so would not introduce more than roughly that percentage of that type of "retrospectives"

No matter the context?

How do these terms strike you?); and obviously I would be looking for the most functionally salient ones I could find.

Salient in which context? For which student/s?

I suppose there were droves following behind you when you walked out of the cinema in disgust the moment that line came up on the screen...

No, no. We droves have to put up with the infestation of Hollywood English upon our every day lives. We get used to it. So, you teach Hollywood English, do you?

Actually "past without 'use(d) to'" can achieve the same function/aspect (as others have also pointed out): "I didn't play soccer", as said by an adult years later, versus by young Timmy who's just arrived home.

Does that form have an unambiguous reference to past habit?

and I just sorta like one form, one function.

And yet, as a native speaker, you have many forms for the same function available to you. Why should your students have anything less?