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

bradwelljackson · Post by **bradwelljackson** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:59 am

Oh yes, if I have the wrong group, please direct me to the right one for asking a question like this.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:45 pm

It's the right place.

A good number of people would call "used to" a modal.

It is "defective" just like a good modal should be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_mo ... liary_verb

bradwelljackson · Post by **bradwelljackson** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:42 am

Hello Woodcutter,

I looked up your Wiki reference, and it states the following concerning "used to" in negative:

"she didn't used to like me".

Is this correct grammar?

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:55 am

Well, surprisingly to me, it is much more common in terms of Google hits than "didn't use to".

So, it seems a classic case of what we have been discussing on another thread. Educated people may tell you it is wrong, it may be marked wrong in a formal context, and yet it is the more common form.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:31 pm

Most people on this forum seem(ed*) to view 'didn't used to' as a case of hypercorrection (it makes little sense grammatically - double finites in the verb phrase?).

*I'm referring to this thread:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... 5231#35231

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:38 pm

Someone here says, like a classic descriptivist should, that "used to" isn't wrong.

http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp ... =lifefocus

The hits are 900 000 vs 2.1 million by the way (in favour of "the mistake")

However, there are three choices we need to make.
Do I call this "correct"?
Do I mark this correct as an editor or teacher?
Do I start using this?

As to grammar logic, I suppose that if modal verbs are "defective", then the "defective" form "didn't used to" is more modalish. (And on hearing the hit count, can a descriptivist really dismiss the form by waving the bogeyman"hypercorrection" about?)

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:15 am

Woody, in this case it's a simple matter really - finite versus non-finite verb (or tensed versus non-tensed, if you prefer). The problem is that a lot of language pundits know almost nothing about grammar (i.e. even less than me, if that were possible).

I found very little of interest or value in the 'Mind Our English' link.

Unperturbed enough?

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:48 am

The "mind your English" man is saying (I think) vast usage makes "correct", whatever the grammar, though he attempts to justify that. Don't agree, Mr.Descriptivist?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 1:49 am

Like I say, it is a case of hypercorrection. I'm not sure (can't remember) if people started bunging the d on spontaneously and unnecessarily, and some usage manual writers saw this as one of their few chances to be in accord with usage at least (if not the relevant linguistic facts), or if the usage was prescribed by a few from the start and gradually caught on (as is the case with most of the other "questions" of usage). Regardless, if people use prescribed and/or hypercorrect forms, that is simply their choice; and even if the majority of people really would prefer to use 'didn't used to', that doesn't mean that it will tally with the rest of a descriptive grammar of English (would you prefer the linguist to jump through hoops and/or rewrite everything else in order to make this one "fact" fit, rather than simply label it as hypercorrectness?). Wouldn't it be nice and refreshing if some people saw at least this instance of usage (their usage) as the anomaly that is is and started to "change" things (mainly, themselves!) accordingly?

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:35 am

Usage trumps "naughty grammar" in the end. Even I believe that!

I tend to think people are simply writing it as it sounds and in accordance with the normal positive form in any case, rather than "hypercorrecting". Hypercorrecting silliness doesn't usually win a word a 21 to 9 points victory in usage.

bradwelljackson · Post by **bradwelljackson** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:21 am

What about "I am used to swimming on Tuesdays"? Is "used to" a modal in this case?

ouyang · Post by **ouyang** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:10 pm

No, modals are always followed by the base infinitive form of verbs. In these phrases, the word "used" is clssified either as an adjective or part of a compound preposition.

Advocates of the adjective classification can point to the similarity of the phrase "accustomed to swimming". Regardless of how the word "used" is classified, the phrase "used to swimming" functions as a predicate adjective in the sentence.

@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.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 8:33 pm

I'm not sure if hypercorrection is a technical term, but it certainly fit(ted) the bill in the thread I referred to earlier (in which metal56 introduced it IIRC). The problem you guys still haven't answered is how you would square this usage (majority or otherwise) with a grammar (notionally, a descriptive one) of English.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Sun Aug 10, 2008 11:55 pm

You don't have to (as a descriptivist) "square it with the grammar" as lolwhites said early on the other thread.

As it happens though, if we call "used to" a modal then the usual rules do not necessarily apply, and the form can perhaps be "excused".

Now, personally, as a "descriptivist" who can actually be bothered to try and incorporate a theory of how a standard dialect is created and maintained, I think that both logic and prescriptivist critics have a role to play. Illogical forms are accepted less easily into educated English. However, since "used to" is kind of an oddball the logic is not clear, and the usage is heavily in favour of it.

I linked the phrases with some words only usually found in formal English and did a few Google searches - the results are much more equal but it seems to me that "didn't used to" still wins out. If that is a valid procedure, then a middle-of-the-road modern linguist has no grounds to call this incorrect. (unless perhaps for UK English alone it differs).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Aug 11, 2008 12:52 pm

Descriptivists would probably prefer not to bother addressing "contentious" points of usage, but the likes of H&P seem to view it as their duty to debunk complete rubbish; in this particular instance, I suspect they give it scant attention (in their grammar - they haven't written a usage manual AFAIK) because the linguistic logic is so sound that it hardly needs defending. 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, 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 (which is probably the only reason why Jotham argues in favour of it so fervently - he seems to worship the guy).