Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
What would be the aspectual difference, if any, between these, IYOs?2 used to forms negatives and questions in the same way as modal auxiliary verbs:
When we were younger, we used not to be allowed to drink coffee.
Source info [Guardian, elect. edn. of 19891221]. World affairs material.Because it used not to understand markets, it can not conceivably have rectified this gap in its political intelligence.
Source info Tomorrow. Taylor, Elizabeth Russell. London: Peter Owen Pubs, 1991, pp. 52-137.Have you always kept the fire going in summer?" Elisabeth enquired. "I used not to, my dear, but I find that I'm feeling the cold as I get older.
Source info Gardens of meditation. Falconar, A E I. Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe Ltd, 1980, pp. 7-103. 1790 s-units.To me the mist seemed like a veil of a moslem bride that is used not to hide but to reveal a subtler beauty to the lover. Here is a modern poet writing of an ancient legend: LOWRI DAFYDD My name is Lowri Dafydd; Famous for nursing I was.
I don't want to flog a dead horse and distract from the 'What the D*ckens!' subthread, so a quick general reply to your above points here: when I talk of examples, I just mean the ones that I would select for inclusion as exemplars, in or as the core 'texts' to be looked at at some point in a course (coursebook? Haven't written one for my own teaching yet - Thank God, you say! LOL). Obviously stuff can crop up in discussion and practice that tests the boundaries of the system's implicit "rules" (at least as it's forming in the students' minds), but I do think that a good course will help students get things "just so" first time round and help them avoid ambiguity, endless checking and discussion etc.No matter the context?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"
Salient in which context? For which student/s?How do these terms strike you?); and obviously I would be looking for the most functionally salient ones I could find.
And yet, as a native speaker, you have many forms for the same function available to you. Why should your students have anything less?and I just sorta like one form, one function.
Well, I did imply that this adult is rather sedentary. Chances are if they'd started playing soccer they'd simply say something like '(I didn't (use to) play (soccer >) at school but) I've started playing soccer'; and later still they might of course say 'I didn't play soccer (yesterday)' etc. I try to supply the context in brackets, so it could be left unsaid in actual use.Does that form have an unambiguous reference to past habit?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.
Not really. I think it would be an extremely light (paperwise) publication. You would be commended by environmentalist EFL teachers world over.coursebook? Haven't written one for my own teaching yet - Thank God, you say! LOL).
Again, and as always, you seem to focus on, revert to discussion on, lower levels. Haven't they allowed you to work with higher levels yet?but I do think that a good course will help students get things "just so" first time round and help them avoid ambiguity, endless checking and discussion etc.
Well, I did imply that this adult is rather sedentary. Chances are if they'd started playing soccer they'd simply say something like '(I didn't (use to) play (soccer >) at school but) I've started playing soccer';
To me, your implication was that the past simple and "used to" are equivalent forms, that they have for the same function. Is that not your implication?Well, I did imply that this adult is rather sedentary.
Burchfield says this:jotham wrote: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.lolwhite wrote: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?
The problem of whether use(d) to is an anomalous verb or a full verb is discussed by Eric Jorgennsen in English Studies, 69 (1988).
:lol:A slimmer tome would certainly beat e.g. poring over a stack of Dave's stuff.Not really. I think it would be an extremely light (paperwise) publication. You would be commended by environmentalist EFL teachers world over.coursebook? Haven't written one for my own teaching yet - Thank God, you say! LOL).
Those that I've met who consider themselves at, or indeed already are at, a very servicable level, don't seem that interested in discussing the language itself; they seem to consider my main responsibility to be one of 'response-ability'. But then, Japan especially has always had its fair share of "English bandits" (even among those of the paying kind - maybe the reaction against "grammar" among non-teachers has just been that much stronger here (to be replaced with much so-called "communicative" stuff i.e. the dregs of CLT)), and I do ultimately have to respect their demand for "conversation", this general avoidance of (much in-depth analysis of) texts among my "students" (but I'm not sure that I'd want them to be too "inquisitive" - ever-questioning - either. Do you get, or end up with, more than your fair share of obssessives, metal? In my experience, that is what happens when teachers pose too many questions in class: the students stop developing and moving on in other senses (and I'm talking about students, not trainee teachers)). I often get the impression that your lessons are like here on Dave's, endless questions but little in the way of concrete answers, like you get others to do all the thinking for you but rarely seem to plump (or even let others plump) for an answer lest you ever appear to be "wrong"...Again, and as always, you seem to focus on, revert to discussion on, lower levels. Haven't they allowed you to work with higher levels yet?but I do think that a good course will help students get things "just so" first time round and help them avoid ambiguity, endless checking and discussion etc.
They are clearly different forms, yet with some overlap in function. My concern has simply been that 'not use to' not be mindlessly taught as some sort of "simple" default without first looking through a wider range of examples. I guess you just don't read too well then (and if further evidence were needed, how about the fact that I'd already alluded to the possibility of rephrasing:To me, your implication was that the past simple and "used to" are equivalent forms, that they have for the same function. Is that not your implication?Well, I did imply that this adult is rather sedentary. Chances are if they'd started playing soccer they'd simply say something like '(I didn't (use to) play (soccer >) at school but) I've started playing soccer';
metal wrote:Also, in the same dictionary, we get this:
Quote:
2 used to forms negatives and questions in the same way as modal auxiliary verbs:
When we were younger, we used not to be allowed to drink coffee.
What would be the aspectual difference, if any, between these, IYOs?
When we were younger, we used not to be allowed to drink coffee.
When we were younger, we were not allowed to drink coffee.
This isn't the first time that you've completely ignored the possible import of what others have had to say (the import here being the obvious redundancy/inefficiency/wordiness of the one phrasing compared to the other; but perhaps examples where BE can substitute as the main verb shouldn't be our focus, especially not when you so disliked 'I wasn't always here in the mountains', hmm does 'He wasn't always this selective' do it for you, then? If so, any idea why?)).Before that, I wrote: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 wrote:BUMP!
The question is: where do you import your import from? Mars?This isn't the first time that you've completely ignored the possible import of what others have had to say (the import here being the obvious redundancy/inefficiency/wordiness of the one phrasing compared to the other;
