Confessions of a Former Grammar Tyrant

[ussusimiel]

When I was teaching TEFL (sorry TheFallen, not only have been guilty of incorrect usage, I have been even guiltier of propagating it! ) I remember that the first time I taught the negative of 'used to' I wrote 'usen't to' up on the board, then I checked the sheet I was working from to find that I was teaching the wrong thing. I corrected myself and proceeded to find that I was then (according to the sheet) spelling 'didn't use to' incorrectly. I, of course, was spelling it as ali did, 'didn't used to'.

I subsequently found out that I was correct from my regional perspective, and that the textbook was using Standard English (or RP (Received Pronunciation)). I think that was the first time I had an inkling that I was teaching a language I didn't speak. The clincher was when I found out that there were two pronunciations of 'there', as in 'there are people over they-ah'. (Never mind the pronunciation of rhotic word like, 'floor', 'door', 'shore' )

u.

[TheFallen]

Your humility speaks well for you, Mr. Potato. I'm glad you've seen the light.

If any more evidence were even needed, the Cambridge Dictionary gives this:-

use verb (IN THE PAST)
use to

In negative sentences and questions, 'use to' replaces 'used to' when it follows 'did' or 'didn't':

Did he use to be the doctor in 'Star Trek'?

We didn't use to go out much in the winter months.

link

..and there's more.

used to (verb)

Learner's definition of USED TO

[modal verb]

— used to say that something existed or repeatedly happened in the past but does not exist or happen now

We used to go out more often. [=in the past we went out more often]

He never used to smoke. [=he never smoked in the past]

My grandmother said winters used to be harder here.

(Brit, old-fashioned) You used not to smoke, did you?

Usage

Used to is usually used in the form use to when it occurs with did.

Did you use to work there? [=did you work there in the past?]

It didn't use to be like that.

He didn't use to smoke.

link

To maintain that modern common parlance has made the abomination that is "I didn't used to do that" correct is about as watertight as claiming that "I axed him a question" is equally proper.

As I said, case indefatigably closed.

[I'm Murrin]

Used to is usually used in the form use to when it occurs with did.

[TheFallen]

Used to is usually used in the form use to when it occurs with did.

Sheesh... okay so just one of the six differing and entirely legitimate sources I quoted allowed for "I did used to..." as "unusual" (by implication), whereas the other five (count 'em, five) categorically stated that "I did used to..." was just plain wrong.

It remains as clunkingly and inelegantly abominable as it is incorrect. So sue me....

[I'm Murrin]

Language is about communication. If it's successfully used to communicate the meaning, then t'ain't incorrect.

[Vraith]

about as watertight as claiming that "I axed him a question" is equally proper.

It is equally "proper," in the appropriate situations. It's just dialect.
Sure, there are plenty of times you don't want to use it, but that has more to do with social/cultural rules than "grammar," [hell, a whole lot of grammar is nothing but social/cultural "rules," not meaning-oriented at all.]
[[BTW--although I've HEARD lots of folk SPEAK that way...one district I worked in everyone spoke that way...I never had a student WRITE it in a formal situation.]]

Now, you're correct on use/used.
Compare running to the store:
I didn't run to the store [not I didn't ran to the store]
More on point:
I didn't have to run. [not I didn't had to run [or have to ran, or had to ran].

But the question STILL is: does it freaking matter? And much of the time, the only reason it matters is cuz someone is being snooty.
Or consciously or subconsciously caught in social/identity issues.
Or because they are being authoritarian.

Now, a fair number of folk...to be fair..., it viscerally bothers them...I don't know why, it's kinda OCD-like to me. [my wife is one of them...irritates the shit out of her...our current Chief Justice apparently is/was famous for becoming angry and mean when confronted by even the tiniest errors].

Heh.
Probably someone out there is all those:
A learned, lead-doggy, top-tier insider upon his mountain-top [ or within his penthouse] about to have a stroke because some community-college bred sycophantic underling wrote "its" not "it's" in the email he's reading.

I'm pretty sure I don't want to know that theoretical person.

[TheFallen]

Now, you're correct on use/used.
Compare running to the store:
I didn't run to the store [not I didn't ran to the store]
More on point:
I didn't have to run. [not I didn't had to run [or have to ran, or had to ran].

Of course I'm correct.

Sadly, your examples, although equally correct, are not that illuminating, since you unfortunately chose a verb - namely "to run" - which has a past participle that is exactly the same as its infinitive form (to run... I have run). When people incorrectly put "I did used to...", the usage they're confusing is that of the modal verb "to do" with that of the simple auxiliary verb "to have", as used in the construction of the English perfect tense. Unlike this latter, "to do" demands being followed by an infinitive. Using a verb such as "to kiss", where its past participle noticeably differs from its infinitive form helps make this clear.

1. "I have kissed the bride"... perfectly correct. The auxiliary verb "to have" followed by a past participle creates the past perfect tense.

2. "I did kiss the bride"... again perfectly correct. The modal verb "to do" followed by the infinitive form.

3. Hence, "I did use to kiss the bride"... the same rule as in 2 above applies.

Modal verbs (e.g. "can", "must", "shall", "may". "ought", plus "will" and "do" in some senses) always govern an infinitive.

But the question STILL is: does it freaking matter?

My answer's an emphatic YES, but I'd be hard-pushed to tell you why. It just does.

If only you people had studied Latin, you'd be so much more linguistically competent... *mutter* *grumble*

Equally, if only you people didn't have English as your native language (not that any Americans actually do), again you'd be so much more linguistically competent.

[aliantha]

Which of these two looks (or even just feels) more correct?

A) Did you use to be a fireman?

B) Did you used to be a fireman?

B. B looks correct to me.

All of your source materials are British, TF. Here's a linguist from the University of Pennsylvania who has a different take on the matter:

The key insight here, I think, is that "used to" has been sort of part-way re-analyzed as an aspectual auxiliary, usually pronounced [ˈjus.tə] and sometimes written "useta". The "to" part has been incorporated into this new verb, so that "used to be" is no longer "used [to be]" but rather "[used to] be", where "used to" is just the way to render the word [ˈjus.tə] in standard spelling, just as "want to" and "going to" are the ways to write wanna and gonna.

One factor that may be involved in this process is that [ˈjus.tə] can be a reduced pronunciation for both "used to" and "use to". So when someone wants to render "It didn't [ˈjus.tə] be" in standard spelling, they may be tempted to spell the verb as "used to", even if their internal grammar represents the form as "use to".

However, I can testify that my internal grammar doesn't have any analysis involving a verb use in any of these forms. The first piece of evidence is from pronunciation. The final consonant of the genuine verb use is voiced, so that a careful pronunciation of "… (didn't) use to …" should be [ˈjuz.tu], and similarly [ˈjuzd.tu] for "… used to …". But both of these are out of the question for me.

This might just show that I've re-lexicalized this usage as a different verb use with the pronunciation [ˈjus] (like the noun). But this "verb" would be seriously defective:

*He uses to like spinach.
*He may use to like spinach.
*Could he use to like spinach?

And it wouldn't allow any immediately following adverbs (or even parentheticals or filled pauses):

*She used clearly to like spinach.
*She used, I think, to like spinach.
*She used uh to like spinach.

In other words, at least for me, "used to" (in its aspectual sense) is just a word. Specifically, a verb with very restricted distribution.

What about the 10% or so of English speakers who prefer to write "… didn't use to …"?

There are two obvious possibilities. One is that their internal analysis is different, and "used to" really does involve the preterite form of a verb use. The other is that their internal grammar is the same as mine (and Tim's), but their attempts to make sense of the conventional spelling (and historical source) for "used to" lead them to the artificial spelling "didn't use to".

My money would be on option two.

Some interesting stuff in the comments on the ESL thing you guys are talking about.

And here, let me rewrite the sentence that started the whole kerfuffle, so we can all move on:

I swear I never used to have this problem.

Everybody happy now?

[deer of the dawn]

If any more evidence were even needed, the Cambridge Dictionary gives this:-

use verb (IN THE PAST)
use to

In negative sentences and questions, 'use to' replaces 'used to' when it follows 'did' or 'didn't':

Did he use to be the doctor in 'Star Trek'?

We didn't use to go out much in the winter months.

link

..and there's more.

used to (verb)

Learner's definition of USED TO

[modal verb]

— used to say that something existed or repeatedly happened in the past but does not exist or happen now

We used to go out more often. [=in the past we went out more often]

He never used to smoke. [=he never smoked in the past]

My grandmother said winters used to be harder here.

(Brit, old-fashioned) You used not to smoke, did you?

Usage

Used to is usually used in the form use to when it occurs with did.

Did you use to work there? [=did you work there in the past?]

It didn't use to be like that.

He didn't use to smoke.

link

To maintain that modern common parlance has made the abomination that is "I didn't used to do that" correct is about as watertight as claiming that "I axed him a question" is equally proper.

As I said, case indefatigably closed.

I admit to misusing "used to" many a time, having never actually thought it through.

Now, about "axing" a question. I find this perplexing. In Nigeria, not only do people ax a question, they sit at a dex, eat food from a flax, bury a person in a caxet, wear a max, and complete a tax. I quell silent objections every time, unless I'm in my classroom where I have every right. Yet, I have heard educated, professional African-Americans say ax instead of ask when speaking informally, as well. I find that perplexing and a cause to use the Serenity Prayer in order to keep calm.

[TheFallen]

All of your source materials are British, TF.

Yes, well last time I looked, the language was called English - and since England's part of Great Britain, ergo British sources are inevitably the authoritative ones. In that vein I think we can safely discard the ramblings of some jumped-up academic from some alleged "university in the new world" (isn't that an oxymoron?) as entirely irrelevant.

[aliantha]

All of your source materials are British, TF.

Yes, well last time I looked, the language was called English - and since England's part of Great Britain, ergo British sources are inevitably the authoritative ones. In that vein I think we can safely discard the ramblings of some jumped-up academic from some alleged "university in the new world" (isn't that an oxymoron?) as entirely irrelevant.

Feel free to continue to be pedantic, if that's what suits you.



But seriously -- I agree with the guy. "Used to" feels like a separate word to me -- as if it's a compound adverb, if you will, modifying "didn't." I don't think of it as being a verb at all.

That said, English (and not just American English ) is an evolving language. Over the past few years, I've had to come to terms with several things that have changed since I learned them in school, just because the usage is changing.

[Vraith]

Yet, I have heard educated, professional African-Americans say ax instead of ask when speaking informally, as well. I find that perplexing and a cause to use the Serenity Prayer in order to keep calm.

Will it make you feel better or worse that "ax" is at least as old Middle-English?
this and a number of other things have nothing to do with "proper English" or grammar, and everything to do with many other things.

No one, upon hearing someone say "Cah" thinks:
"I wish they'd learn to speak proper English."
They think:
"S/he's from Boston."

[TheFallen]

Feel free to continue to be pedantic, if that's what suits you.



But seriously -- I agree with the guy. "Used to" feels like a separate word to me -- as if it's a compound adverb, if you will, modifying "didn't." I don't think of it as being a verb at all.

It suits me perfectly... one woman's pedant is another's champion.

I can see why you might agree with the guy, although your argument would be better put if you described "used to" as an adverbial construct modifying the following verb (temporally), as in "I didn't used to like coffee" (ick, that really hurts to type that). Were it an adverbial compound, it'd modify the following "like", but wouldn't modify the preceding "didn't". In the sentence above, "didn't" is itself a modal verb construct expressing emphasis (or affirmation/negation if you'd rather), viz. the semantic difference between "I like coffee" and "I do like coffee".

However "to use to" is clearly a verb, as you yourself showed when you wrote "I swear I never used to have this problem". Turn that into the third person singular for a second... were "used to" an adverbial phrase as you maintain, then one would have to write "he swears he never used to has (or used to had) this problem", which is clearly a nonsense.

"To use (to do something)" is indeed a defective verb as the dimwit from Pennsylvania maintains. However, that's "defective" in the grammatical sense, namely a verb that does not (and indeed semantically cannot) have forms in all tenses. These are vanishingly rare, but do exist in several languages. The only other one I can think of is the French verb gésir, if anyone's interested, but there'll be a few others.


*** Added Later Brainwave Edit ***

Here's another defective English verb for you - "to ought (to do something)" (not that "ought" even has an infinitive form). It's surprisingly similar in many ways to "to use (to do something)" and equally defective.

If you bunch of reprobates would like a little education on the nature and correct usage of modal and semi-modal English verbs, can I recommend this page and subsequent links off it? This has been a Public Service announcement.

[aliantha]

Feel free to continue to be wrong, TF.

(To be completely honest, when I originally typed "I didn't used to," the phrase felt clunky to me, and I almost went back to rewrite the sentence. In retrospect, I guess I should have listened to my gut. OTOH, never in a million years would I have changed it to "I didn't use to." Sorry, but that still looks and feels wrong to me. I guess it'll just have to be another of my personal failings...)

In the spirit of the Sheriff's original post, I give you this:

Correct English is the slang of prigs who write history and essays.

[TheFallen]

Prig... pedant... I'll wear both badges proudly.

[[Syl]]

Language is about communication. If it's successfully used to communicate the meaning, then t'ain't incorrect.

At least someone read the article.

[lorin]

Language is about communication. If it's successfully used to communicate the meaning, then t'ain't incorrect.

At least someone read the article.

I read the entire article. I just had nothing of value to add.

[[Syl]]

Heh. Sorry, Lorin. What I was trying to say is that the discussion in this thread is running contrary to the points of the article. Not that certain aspects of the conversation aren't worthy or even germane, I was more just giving Murrin props for going back to the spirit of the subject.

Also, I would like to respectfully ask TheFallen to not display Nazi imagery, even if in jest. It's within your rights to do so, but I find it in poor taste, especially since I said in the OP that I no longer use the term "grammar Nazi" because it can offend some members, one of whom I greatly respect and has expressed her thanks in this thread. Not to mention, it's still Rosh ha'Shanah.

[TheFallen]

Never let it be said that I was one to offend sensibilities, however delicate (unless by deliberate intention ).

Now, despite the hideously split infinitive in your request - "Also, I would like to respectfully ask TheFallen..." - just gimme 30 seconds.

...

...ta-daaah!

[[Syl]]

Much obliged.

But why not split the infinitive in this case? Does it make the meaning less clear? If I had said "respectfully like to," I would have then modified "like" instead of "ask." "I would like to ask respectfully TheFallen" is just awkward, as would be most reformations of the sentence into acceptable forms. No, this split infinitive stuff is exactly the kind of garbage up with which I will not put! I have read that the rule derives from Latin grammarians, but that is simply because you can't split infinitives in Latin.

And hyphens to interject a quote? How gauche. Alt+0151, son.