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

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Sat Aug 23, 2008 3:14 pm

Thank you for that. I can also see that the difference between "a photo of John" and "a photo of John's" is a useful one.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:18 am

Winding back a bit (Juan) - I think "used to" changes the "mode" into habitual past, just as "will" changes the mode, and displays modality, by changing the mode into the future. Despite the unusual fussing with the negation of "used to", just like other modals it can be followed by forms like "eat" "be eating" or "have eaten" to further refine the aspect/timing.

I haven't gone through the whole 10 pages of the metal 56 thread but the justification for the form "used to not" is that "used to" is somewhat like a modal and can thus be plausibly be negated with "not". If lol had said that at first while giving the descriptivist position it would have been enough said really.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:03 am

I think you've stumbled on something. And back on topic!

Here we are beating our brains about "I didn't use(d) to smoke" "I used not to smoke" and including the latter in our semi-modals because it lacks do-support.

But we don't go ape about "It didn't seem to matter/be mattering/ have mattered/have been mattering" "It seemed to not matter/etc" "It seemed not to matter/etc " or "I didn't want to go/have gone/ be going" "I wanted to not go/etc " "I wanted not to go/etc ". We don't revise our list of semi-modals ever upwards to include every single verb that lends itself to that verb-not-to-verb sequence. And where that second verb can be in a variety of forms, as long as the fisrt word is "have" or "be", something not restricted to modals.

Notwithstanding, they do seem to be like the verbs that resisted the rise of almost universal do-support the longest. Verbs like hope, think, believe, and so on, which have a good deal more modality at first sight than the rather factual "used to". Perhaops the modality of "used to" is in that unspoken assertion:

"I used to smoke (and you 'd better believe me that now the situation has changed)"

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:04 am

Personally I can't see the puropse of creating a class of semi-modals unless you can describe what they generally do and what a prototypical one would be like, and I'm not sure that you can. I think it is better just to call an item like "used to" an eccentric modal.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:31 am

A semi-modal neither satisfies all the conditions of being a modal nor those of being a full verb. "Ought to" is one because that pesky "to" stops it being modal number ten. Need is because it doesn't always have dummy "do" and 3rd person ---s. Let and Make are because they are followed by a bare infinitive. And so on.

Including "used to" because of "used not to" makes "I tried not to" a semi-modal as well. Which is a stretch. However there is something modal in meaning as well as form about the verbs that seem to do this do/did-less negative.