Is "used to" a modal? If not, what would you call

[JuanTwoThree]

"used to" for past habits, and states, clearly has nothing to do with "used to +ing". They're not even pronounced the same way.

Obviously it's not in with the nine modals (CCWWSSMMM) and one modal phrase (had better).

Equally obviously "used not to" is semi-modal in form at least : lack of do-support is a feature of semi-modality.

Two things interest me. One is the bandying about of the word "modal" with little apparent thought as to its meaning, beyond that of "CCWWSSMMM are the modals". It's not just a form.

Modality is also about evidentiality, possibility, negation etc so I am still interested in the fact that "I didn't use to" and "I used not to" don't seem to differ in meaning. Which rather bucks the trend that semi-modality in form is usually associated with more modality in meaning than there is in the strictly non modal form or less than there is in the more modal form:

"I ought to go" is less modal (in both senses) than "I should go"

"You needn't go" is more so (in both senses) than "You don't need to go"

So as I asked rather plaintively in that last long thread mentioned by fluffyhamster before it turned into one of metal56's olympic micturation contests:

Is there any difference in meaning between "I didn't use to smoke" and "I used not to smoke"?

It should have to do with modality.


BTW I'm a bit forlorn without Andrew around to share my interests in these arcania.

[jotham]

@fluffy - I've never read or heard the term "hypercorrection" used to describe "didn't used to", but it seems logical, at least for today. Actually, I've never really noticed this phrase before. So, tomorrow I might decide that you are a contemptible prescriptivist.

Don't be fooled; he's showing his true linguist colors on this issue -- just like lock step. Linguists usually inveigh against common usage on this point for some higher principle they obviously deem more "logical" or superior (than usage) in their circle.

[jotham]

But in case anyone were in any doubt, Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage basically says that the evidence found indicated that dropping the d (following did) was more common than not dropping it,

I don't do "basically says": quote it.

that to keep the d was considered non-standard on both sides of the Atlantic, and that only Garner seems to rabidly recommend stuff like didn't used to

The dictionary said that?

[fluffyhamster]

If you think I have completely mischaracterized what M-W says, by all means quote it at length and set the record straight, Jotham. Or do you only have the Garner on your shelf? If so, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it. But FWIW, it probably went "only Garner seems to be in favour of/argue for it".

[jotham]

If you think I have completely mischaracterized what M-W says, by all means quote it at length and set the record straight, Jotham.

In my experience, dictionaries don't single people out as disagreeing with them, especially one person. If they did, then Garner must be more popular and influential than I thought, and they consider him a force to be contended with if they must mention him at all in their dictionary. That means Fowler ain't dead yet.
You could be right, but the burden of proof is on you to quote it. My dictionaries are older and I haven't bought a dictionary in quite some time, so I presently use online sources for my dictionary needs, and particularly prefer Encarta. If you're only quoting from your biased interpretation and memory and don't have the resource on your own shelf that you can easily quote, you're certainly amiss at criticizing me for not producing your quote.
But I'm truly curious to see if the dictionary really mentions Garner. I'm also curious to know what "evidence" the dictionary has that makes their viewpoint suddenly common usage.

[Stephen Jones]

Is there any difference in pronunciation between didn't use to and didn't used to?

[JuanTwoThree]

No.

I don't think there's much to add to this:

http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=8277

The limits to my descriptivism include "it's" for "its", "should of" for "should have" and "didn't used to" for "didn't use to".

[fluffyhamster]

If you think I have completely mischaracterized what M-W says, by all means quote it at length and set the record straight, Jotham.

In my experience, dictionaries don't single people out as disagreeing with them, especially one person. If they did, then Garner must be more popular and influential than I thought, and they consider him a force to be contended with if they must mention him at all in their dictionary. That means Fowler ain't dead yet.
You could be right, but the burden of proof is on you to quote it. My dictionaries are older and I haven't bought a dictionary in quite some time, so I presently use online sources for my dictionary needs, and particularly prefer Encarta. If you're only quoting from your biased interpretation and memory and don't have the resource on your own shelf that you can easily quote, you're certainly amiss at criticizing me for not producing your quote.
But I'm truly curious to see if the dictionary really mentions Garner. I'm also curious to know what "evidence" the dictionary has that makes their viewpoint suddenly common usage.

The purpose of M-W is not to single anyone out as disagreeing with them, but rather to survey (provide a survey of) the variety of opinions regarding contentious (sometimes just "contentious") points of usage, and leave readers to make up their own minds (if they really feel they must); that is, by including Garner's opinion (among other writers'), M-W actually offers the reader the option of agreeing with say him on at least this issue (and such readers might then cast the M-W aside forevermore even!). Nothing sinister there, and certainly not "a crusade against the most influential usage guru ever!".:lol:

Anyway, sorry Jotham but I thought you'd own at least the Concise edition (it's a good book!). I might "deign" to type out what M-W says (if it isn't available online - can't remember if it is or not), but like I say, I don't think I've mischaracterized what it said (it doesn't go on at much length), and didn't expect to be taken to task for adding what is clearly my own opinion into the mix (and that opinion can be taken out by deleting the word 'rabidly' and the stuff in brackets after it). It would be nice actually if you could just take my word for it, and less of what appears to be offence, J, and didn't scrutinize what usage manuals say like it were holy scripture.

http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewtopic.php?t=8663 ('Informative and instructive reviews on Amazon', a thread regarding how people view the unabridged M-W Dictionary of English Usage, and thus questions of usage generally, and which includes the following particularly apposite comment:

To quote one reviewer (Richard Hershberger), 'The one-star reviewers overlook two points. The first is that Merriam Webster often gives firm advice. Those who claim that this book is "anything goes" are misrepresenting the book. Indeed, frequently this advice is exactly what the prescriptivists would give. Frequently it is not, but that's what happens when you let evidence influence your opinion. The second, more serious point is that a reader can learn the traditional conclusion even when Merriam Webster disagrees with it. If a reader wants to know Fowler's opinion this book will give it. There is no longer any need to actually own a copy of Fowler. So the objections to this book implicitly are that it gives more information than they would like. This is a peculiar objection to make of a reference work. It would be downright sinister were there reason to suspect these opinions to be at all thought out.' )

[jotham]

Oh, I'm sorry. I just realized you're talking about the usage manual and not the dictionary.
I have frequently resourced the American Heritage and the Columbia Guide usage manuals online, but realize they are both decidedly descriptive (although Columbia is much better). As such, they are't especially helpful for making final decisions on the job. M-W is probably not much different from American Heritage.
http://www.bartleby.com/usage/

I'd still like to know what evidence M-W supposedly has (assuming you quoted them correctly) that dropping the d has suddenly become common usage.

[Stephen Jones]

but realize they are both decidedly descriptive (although Columbia is much better). As such, they are't especially helpful for making final decisions on the job.

So describing how the language works doesn't help you make linguistic decisions? Why don't you get somebody to program you a Random Silly Rule Generator. Or alternatively whenever you have a passage where nothing seems wildly out of place just write 'Stet All'.

[JuanTwoThree]

Coming at this from another angle it's worth considering the usefulness of "used to". Clearly it tidies up any confusion between a habit and a one-off occasion that, say

"I smoked dope at University"

may cause. In other words "I used to smoke dope at Unversity" is a better past of "I smoke dope" than ""I smoked dope" is.

So I wondered if there used to be a present form that was used to clear up confusions before the present simple settled down to measning "habitually" removing the need for a present of "used to" and thus its demise.

So googling "who uses to" is interesting. There's an awful lot of mangled English that could be NNS extrapolating a present from the past "used to". Something my Spanish students do a lot because they don't get the idea that "I go to the cinems" IS "usually" by default

But then there's Pepys:

"I did this night give the waterman who uses to carry me 10s."

"I was but yesterday with Mr Thompson who uses to acquaint me wth the new Books"

Milton: "Well knows he, who uses to consider, that our faith and knowledge thrives by exercise, as well as our limbs and complexion ..."

Gray: "To-morrow we are to pay a visit to the abbot of the Cistercians, who lives a few leagues off, and who uses to receive all strangers with great civility ..."


Dryden: "Who's the fool ! why, who uses to be the fool ? he that ever was since I knew him"

"Some ape of the French Eloquence, who uses to make a business of a Letter of gallantry"

And there are more.

King James Bible: Look thou upon me, and be merciful unto me, as thou usest to do unto those that love thy name.
Psalm 119:131-133

So I think it's reasonable to suppose that "used to" used to have a present.

[jotham]

So describing how the language works doesn't help you make linguistic decisions?

It doesn't help me make editing decisions. It's not my job to write like common people do with spelling and punctuation mistakes intact. It's my job to be above that, to write excellently and render the English in documents submitted to me at a higher level than it was before — even if it was just okay.
A good editor is similar to a pianist who knows the technical skills (which are not randomly generated) that are proven to make lasting impressions in people.

Or alternatively whenever you have a passage where nothing seems wildly out of place just write 'Stet All'.

We hear mundane things said every day by common people. Why pay an editor to write similarly to the way we hear the masses speak and present themselves every day — so crassly and badly planned? You hire an editor and pay him or her good money to write from a fresh angle and interesting perspective, and to write well, thought-provokingly, and entertainainly — enough so that it's worth my time to read it. Common people merely make conversation; but a good editor elevates the conversation.
It's the linguists' job to describe how reality is. It's the grammarians' or editors' job to improve that reality. Similarly, it's the historians' job to describe how life or a situation existed at one time; and it's the scientists' or politicians' job to improve that life and situation, environment, etc., for the present and future. To each his own.

[jotham]

I thought Garner's quotation of the day today is pretty fitting about the qualitative difference between writers or editors and the rest.

Quotation of the Day: "The writing of literate Americans whose primary business is not writing but something else is pretty bad. It is muddy, backward, convoluted and self-strangled; it is only too obviously the product of a task approached unwillingly and accomplished without satisfaction or zeal. Except for the professionals among us, we Americans are hell on the English language." Donald J. Lloyd, "Our National Mania for Correctness," in A Linguistics Reader 57, 57-58 (Graham Wilson ed., 1967).

[fluffyhamster]

I thought Garner's quotation of the day today is pretty fitting about the qualitative difference between writers or editors and the rest.

Quotation of the Day: "The writing of literate Americans whose primary business is not writing but something else is pretty bad. It is muddy, backward, convoluted and self-strangled; it is only too obviously the product of a task approached unwillingly and accomplished without satisfaction or zeal. Except for the professionals among us, we Americans are hell on the English language." Donald J. Lloyd, "Our National Mania for Correctness," in A Linguistics Reader 57, 57-58 (Graham Wilson ed., 1967).

Surely Lloyd is saying that prescriptivism is stunting how ordinary people try to express themselves (or rather don't!); that is, that following so-called rules out of some peculiar linguistic insecurity is no way to lead one's writing life (you don't need to be an actual paid, professional writer to write, it is a skill we all possess and indeed have to use). I mean, just look at the title of the piece - Our National Mania for Correctness - and where it appeared in this instance (A Linguistics Reader). Put simply, I just do not understand what you have read into that, the use or inspiration that you're trying to make of or draw from it, Jotham.

Anyway, you'll be pleased to know that the unabridged M-W Dictionary of English Usage is previewable on Google Book Search:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&q=Polk (page 934, and back into 933 for the complete entry)

The Concise edition differs only in its concluding section (which is shorter):

Some commentators call such usage an error, but others find it acceptable. Quirk et al. 1985 says that did...used to is often regarded as non-standard on both sides of the Atlantic, but Garner 1998 insists on it. According to our evidence, the usual form in American English is didn't use to.
See also SUPPOSED TO.

Then there is the earlier comment (pp 933-4) that 'Our evidence shows that most writers remember to drop the d of used to following did'.

The only Garner in the 1994 unabridged original is the actor James Garner (by way of a quote); obviously Brian (Garner 1998, at least) couldn't be included until the publication of the M-W Concise edition in 2002.

[jotham]

Surely Lloyd is saying that prescriptivism is stunting how ordinary people try to express themselves (or rather don't!); that is, that following so-called rules out of some peculiar linguistic insecurity is no way to lead one's writing life (you don't need to be an actual paid, professional writer to write, it is a skill we all possess and indeed have to use). I mean, just look at the title of the piece - Our National Mania for Correctness - and where it appeared in this instance (A Linguistics Reader). Put simply, I just do not understand what you have read into that, the use or inspiration that you're trying to make of or draw from it, Jotham.

You're really twisting yourself into a pretzel to come up with that interpretation. Is this another one of your creative "basically says" quotes? Is this what Lloyd is basically saying? Come on, he's saying that common people don't write well and that writers do. If we looked at the world through your lens, you'd have us assume that common people are prescriptively adept at all the writing skills while writers slough it all off and are more excellent anyhow.
Curiously, I find not only your writing but also your thinking processes to be "muddy, backward, convoluted and self-strangled."

Now the M-W says "Some commentators call such usage an error, but others find it acceptable," which means that your interpretation that Garner is the only one that "rabidly" promotes such is wrong. Maybe they only mention Garner by name, but it's obvious he isn't the only one.

Then there is the earlier comment (pp 933-4) that 'Our evidence shows that most writers remember to drop the d of used to following did'.

I love the part when they say this:

But the spelling "did...used to" does sometimes finds its way into print.

Sometimes finds its way? By a 4 to 1 ratio in print sources. Indeed it seems most writers remember to keep the d. They wrote this back in 1994 before the Internet. I wonder what their "evidence" was for this? I'm pretty sure it wasn't the case that it was prominent in 1994 and then suddenly wasn't more recently.