Standard use of used to or not?

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:21 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:One test that you might want to do to prove that "used to" for discontinued habits and states is in the past simple is to look at the negative which is "didn't use to" here the past is shown by "did" leaving "use" in the infinitive in the same pattern that is used for most negative verbs in the past simple.

Once again, you can't form perfect tenses with the past tense.

Perfect tenses are formed using the past participle.
How do you feel about.

Let us go, it is time.

He let us went, because is was time.

Or even that "used to" is not a tensed verb at all. Instead, it may be just an idiom:

used to (+ V): an action that was true in the past but is not true now.

"Jane used to live in Austin, Texas. She lives in San Francisco now."


http://www.eslcafe.com/idioms/id-u.html

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:27 pm

Ed wrote:I think Andrew is right.

According to my grammar books and my Cambridge International Dictionary of English, "used to" only exists in this form, the Past Simple. It is probably a defective verb (I'm not sure if this is the right term).

Regards,

Ed
What about defective expressions:

to try and do (meaning, "to try to do")

*I had to to try to do all I could.

LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Wed Apr 14, 2004 11:33 pm

Your use of the negative is convincing, Andy, and makes the case for use being a verb. But then why can't used be a past participle?

Larry Latham

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:55 am

OK, I've been asked a few questions concerning "used to" for discontinued actions

First of all yes, "defective" verb is the correct term for verbs that don't have all the tenses.

I think that the reason that it is defective is that the present form and past participle would be meaningless.

"used to" means discontinued habits or continuing states (I didn't use adjective continuing before, but I think I should have.) It is therefore implicit in its meaning that you are talking in the past. It often comes with a time expression like "when I was at school". I already showed you the negative test to prove it is in the past.

I would like to answer the question about the present of "used to" with another and I'll answer it myself:

What would the present of "used to" mean?

No, it would not mean discontinued habits or continuing states in the present. Habits and continuing states by their very nature must occupy time, and by the time they become discontinued, they have a past.

I've actually already answered the question about why "used to" can't have a perfect tense". I'll repost it for your convienience, but you should go back and see it in context. The important part is in bold:

2. Ironically, since it is in the past simple, "used to" nevertheless refers to an indefinite time. We know it happened in the past, but we don't know exactly when. This is because it refers to habits or continuous states which can't have a point-like reference of time even if adverbial expressions like "when I was a child" are used.

If you have no time reference to compare it to, you can't sensibly talk about what happened before that time.


I would add that the present perfect is impossible because "used to" refers to past time. That's the meaning of the phrase.

Finally is it :
"used to" + infinitive; or
"use"+to+infinitive.

Probably the first because it is possible to give a short answer, "I used to"

Do you go skiing?
I used to.

However, "to" there implies purpose. I'm not sure about this one, does I used to ski imply that that was your purpose which is now discontinued.

In my Venn diagram of the English catenatives I only list the verb. This is simply because it would be extremely time consuming to write "to" after every verb in the "to"+infinitive section and would take up a lot of space also some verbs genuinely do imply a sense of purpose where "to+infinitive would be more appropiate.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:09 am

I already showed you the negative test to prove it is in the past.
But that doesn't prove it is past tense of anything in contemporary use. Again, past tense of what?

2. Ironically, since it is in the past simple, "used to" nevertheless refers to an indefinite time.
As i said, we first have to agree that it is the past tense.
We know it happened in the past, but we don't know exactly when. This is because it refers to habits or continuous states which can't have a point-like reference of time even if adverbial expressions like "when I was a child" are used.
Cannot "when I was a child" be seen as a point? Seeing things as points or as periods can often be interchangeable and certainly has a subjective element in some interpretations.

If you have no time reference to compare it to, you can't sensibly talk about what happened before that time.
It depends on the type of time reference:

*Before I was a child, I had thought that...

Before I became a teenager, I had thought that...

I would add that the present perfect is impossible because "used to" refers to past time. That's the meaning of the phrase.
Also, again, if you see it solely as tensed.

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Thu Apr 15, 2004 9:59 am

No, Metal,

It does not make it a point in time because we are still talking about habits or continuing states both of which occupy time.

Note also that you are a child for a number of years. Certainly, this is not a point in time.

Also, I repeat the only reason why it has no present tense is that it logically can't have one.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:07 pm

Andrew Patterson wrote:No, Metal,

It does not make it a point in time because we are still talking about habits or continuing states both of which occupy time.

Note also that you are a child for a number of years. Certainly, this is not a point in time.

Also, I repeat the only reason why it has no present tense is that it logically can't have one.
Certainly, this is not a point in time.
If we wish to pychologically reduce it to such in some references to that time, it can be a point.

LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Thu Apr 15, 2004 3:33 pm

I'm afraid, Andy, that Metal56 is making more sense here to me. He is correct in asserting that users can envision what might logically seem to be "periods of time" in a holistic way, and so imagine them to be "points". (It's not so much that they are envisioned as points, but rather that the period in question is gathered together as a whole, and conceived of as a unit. The same can be done with space, as in at the airport.)

And I also have to repeat his question: "The past tense of what?" If tense is involved, it is an inflection, and you must have something to inflect. If there is a "past tense", then there must be some kind of "present" form to inflect in order to get to "past tense". Past tense cannot just occur on its own.

And I'm afraid I don't understand your argument with regard to why it cannot have a perfect form. You argue that the intrinsic meaning of "used to" must be past time. But I will counter by suggesting that its meaning is "time before now". Clearly that is in the past time, but it is exactly what is required for Present Perfect Aspect. Also, it is conceivable to me that "had used to" is entirely acceptable when the user imagines a "time before some past time marker", even if that marker is not specifically identified. We simply know that he has in his mind some point in past time, perhaps some significant event in his mind, which occurred after the "used to" event. That is not so unusual; we can acceptably say, "He had gone."

I also don't really see what is "defective" about used to. It seems to work just fine.

Finally, I ask again, is it used+an infinitive with to, or used to+a bare infinitive? If there is any inflection involved, it must be the former. If it is the latter, then it is unique as far as I know. I can't think of any other verb which includes "to" following.

Larry Latham

Mohamed Shaaban
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:50 pm
Location: Egypt

Post by Mohamed Shaaban » Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:03 pm

had used to think that the world was round.

They had used to believe in Santa.

I believe that writers have the freedom to manipulate language struture on purpose in order for them to reinforce some meaning. Therefore the use of " had used" could not be generalized. Also, there might not exist any origin for this structure in the English language. I just want to explain that writers whether playwrights or poets sometime resort to deviating the normal language structure. Some linguist consider this evil and even cause the decay of the language; others see that as Art.
There could be no dispute over one structure; there are so many unsettled disputes over hundreds. No one woould have the ability to prevent language from changing.
Maybe one day we would say: We had used to dispute over "had used to". who knows? :!: [/img][/list][/code]

wjserson
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 6:09 am
Location: Ottawa

Post by wjserson » Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:15 pm

Correction :

"Some linguist consider this evil and even [state it's] cause the decay of the language"

A true linguist aknowledges language change absolutely. His/her goal is to more or less observe language being used and try to discover why it's being used that way, and to come to a conculsion about why the linguistic concept is happening.

A grammarian, on the other hand, would be more upset about how an author writes. Grammarians frown upon exeptional use of language.

A 'linguist' who frowns upon language change as wrong or 'disgusting' cannot be a linguist.

LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:19 pm

Great observations by both Mohamad and wjserson.

Larry Latham

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:19 am

I hope this is not an attack on me.

I have always held that grammar should be descriptive not prescriptive. That does not mean that we can avoid grammar rules completely.

I can already see what the next big change in English will be, and it isn't have used to. Reported questions will stay in question form. Soon we will all say,

"Could you tell me what time is it?"

The reason is simple, there are more second language speakers of English, and most naturally prefer this form.

Larry, I agree that "before now" is a better description of the meaning of used to. I have already said as much sugesting that it refers to an indefinite time. I repeat, the past perfect contrasts with the past not the present perfect. Used to is grammatically the past tense but semantically present perfect. And it is stupid to talk about what happened before an indefinite time that could go back infinitely far.

This is common sense, not prescriptive grammar.

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:09 pm

LarryLatham wrote:Great observations by both Mohamad and wjserson.

Larry Latham
Yes!

metal56
Posts: 3032
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:30 am

Post by metal56 » Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:19 pm

And it is stupid to talk about what happened before an indefinite time that could go back infinitely far.
This is common sense, not prescriptive grammar.
Before I moved to NY City, that was erm...January 97, I used to imagine it was full of murderers.


Isn't that also the past perfect? One doesn't always need "had" to express a time before a past time. And how many people need to be told
the exact duration of the speakers mistaken naïvety?

A: Before I moved to NY City, that was erm...January 97, I used to imagine it was full of murderers.

B: Don't be vague! For how long before you moved did you think such a stupidly naïve thing?
Last edited by metal56 on Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:58 pm

Excellent! So "used to" can act like the past perfect.

But think Metal, people use the past perfect to say what happened before something else that happened in the past. You are essentially trying to talk about something that happened before the past perfect. :roll:

Post Reply