Is the phrase “did it used to be” grammatically correct? Sounds very wrong to me. Isn’t “was” a better option?
For example:
versus
Both are correct. The second certainly sounds cleaner, but the impression conveyed by each is slightly different.
First one–did it used to be acceptable to spank kids? conveys that it’s not acceptable now.
But the second, Was it acceptable to spank kids? is a bit more generic. I can thnk of using this sentence structure to refer to anything from a millenia ago to last night.
Maybe I’m the only one who reads them that way, though?
Oh, I don’t deny that the former seems to convey a ‘before versus now’ idea. I just feel that somehow it sounds wrong.
One vote for correct, so far.
“Did it use to be” is correct. You have to lose the final -d in used, because it’s compounded with “did.” Since “did” is already in the past tense, you can’t compound it with another verb in the past tense. The verb compounded with it has to be tenseless.
You wouldn’t say “I did used” would you? Although if you speak certain Southern dialects, you might say “I done used.”
Since the sound of the final unvoiced -d in “used” is lost in the following t- that begins the word “to”, in speech the phrases wouldn’t even sound different at all, which makes it easier to confuse them.
You sure? Just sounds wrong to me. Surely “used” is compounded with “to be” … you wouldn’t say “I use to be”, would you?
Any cites to be had?
Descriptively, either one is grammatical. That is, they both pass the “native speaker” test, obviously.
Proscriptively, I wouldn’t use it in a business report, government document, or academic paper. For some spoken dialects it’s considered bad form. For others, it’s fine.
Where I’m from, it’s very common, but some people don’t use it b/c they weren’t brought up saying it, or because they identify it with higher social class/education.
“Use(d) to” is also often used as a disjunct in this area: “Used to, I could run a mile and not get winded.”
Cites? Every grammar class ever held and every grammar text ever written. “Used” = “did use” – the same way as with every verb in the English language. So of course you wouldn’t say “I use to be,” you would say “I used to be.” But that could also be rendered as “I did use to be” (though it seldom is as a matter of convention), and when the word order is rearranged to make a question it becomes “Did I use to be?”
Agreed. “Was it *once * acceptable to spank your kids?” keeps more of the original meaning.
So, is the general consensus along the lines that it is grammatically correct but probably not widely used?
Jomo is right, though I doubt there are many editors who’d bother to correct such a usage. “Used to” is almost idiomatic, but try this archaic construction on for size to understand why the “did” effectively cancels out the “-d”:
Used you to have a crush on David Cassidy?
as in:
Had you a crush on David Cassidy?
Parallel with:
Did you use to have a crush . . .
and
Did you have a crush . . .
You’d never say “*Did you had a crush . . * .”
I don’t have Garner’s book, so I cannot refer to his authoritative advice, but I do read James J. Kilpatrick’s syndicated column on grammar every Sunday, and he recently covered this very topic. Some may think he is flaky, but be that as it may, he also has written several books on the English language. In the aforementioned column, he did refer to other authority (including Garner, but I don’t recall what he said that Garner said), but he concluded that both “used” and “use” are acceptable, but that he preferred “used.”
But why get into that grammatical turmoil, when much simpler alternatives are available?
Then it is correct. Why does it still sound like improper slang along the lines of “ain’t”?
Oh well, I’ll just have to get used to it. Thank you for your input, everyone.
Because people don’t use the construction in formal situations. Anything that sounds like “improper” slang is a legitimate part of the language that isn’t used when people are on their best linguistic behavior.
Another vote for Jomo’s “use to” in this construction. The rule I’ve always seen (and it follows idiomatic speech), is that it’s “used to” in positives, and “use to” in negatives and questions (which take helping verbs.)
Ergo:
I used to smoke.
Did you use to smoke?
I didn’t use to smoke.
When I briefly taught English, my ESL books agreed on this matter (though, I must say, they haven’t always been the authority on grammar.)
A strong, vigorous, and vehement NO!!! to Jomo Mojo – and to Kilpatrick, come to think of it. I will check Garner tomorrow at work, but AFAIK, only “used to” is correct, and it is absolutely correct, Standard Formal English and all. Garner does seem to prefer it in his Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, but he does not have a separate entry for it. He merely notes that “used to could” is “semiliterate for ‘used to be able to’…”
Nametag, it looks like you have misunderstood.
“Used to” is correct when it isn’t compounded with an auxiliary verb like did. We used to answer grammar questions at the Dope.
When you ask a question using do or did, the main verb is used in the bare absolute form, with no person or tense endings. The auxiliary takes the person and tense conjugations, not the main verb.
She answers grammar questions.
Does she answer grammar questions? (Not *Does she answers)
She used to answer grammar questions.
Did she use to answer grammar questions? (Not *Did she used to answer)
In the first set of examples, note how the -s ending for third person singular present tense leaves the main verb and goes to the auxiliary.
In the second set of examples, note how the -d ending for the past tense leaves the main verb and goes to the auxiliary. Is that clear now?
Then fuck Garner and the horse he rode in on.
“Used to could” is perfectly grammatical where I’m from, and a preference for “used to be able to” is dialectical. To call “used to could” semiliterate is bigotry, plain and simple. I wish I could see Garner call James Dickey, Jim Kilgo, Judson Mitcham, or even Courtney Denney “semiliterate”. (Yes, I know half of them are dead – they’d still kick his ass.)
This kind of shit really pisses me off, and I don’t even care if I get banned for saying so. To hell with the BBQ pit, you deserve thrashing right here and now. Who the hell are you to tell me what is “absolutely correct”?
On a lighter note, quoting sources for grammar is like quoting sources for etiquette. They only hold authority if you give it to them. The real arbiter is actual usage.
I’ve seen distinctions made by some users b/t “used to” and “use to” as seems to be the general rule here. Makes sense to me.
But that’s not required by any alleged rule of grammar. “Set phrases” do exist which defy seeming logic. Take the set construction exemplified by “a friend of mine”. Should be “a friend of me”, no? Well, no. That’s how we say it, so that’s how it is.
I’ve known users who prefer “used to” or “use to” exclusively. Of course, in speech, the distinction is moot b/c it can’t be perceived.
Semiliterate my ass!
All righty, for Nametag and the rest of all y’all non-believers out there.
From the American Heritage Book of English usage:
[quote]
We use the verb use in its past tense with an infinitive to indicate a past condition or habitual practice: We used to live in that house. Because the -d in used is not pronounced in these constructions, people sometimes mistakenly leave it out when writing. Thus it is incorrect to write We use to play tennis. ** When do occurs with this form of use in negative statements and in questions, the situation is reversed, and use to (not used to) is correct: You did not use to play on that team. Didn’t she use to work for your company?**
(Emphasis mine.)
Thingol, your post is way out of line for GQ.
Do not violate the rules of these boards again or you will be banned without hesitation.
You have been warned.
Please read the FAQ and Registration Agreement very carefully before you make your next post.
Thank you.
-xash
General Questions Moderator
pulykamell, I find that explanation by the AHD folks puzzling. Let me adapt it for a different word and see how it reads: “The verb ‘kick’ makes its past tense by adding ‘ed’: ‘kicked.’ But for use in negative statements as in questions, the situation is reversed, and ‘kick’ (not ‘kicked’) is correct: He did not kick the ball. Didn’t he kick the ball?”
I mean, both of these are standard ways to make a past tense with an auxiliary verb. You can say “used to” or “did use to,” just like you can say “kicked” or “did kick.” “Used to” follows this exact same pattern, where the auxiliary verb is the one whose ending is changed to indicate past tense. It’s not that you take off the “d” when you put it in a negative statement or a question, it’s that you use an auxiliary verb which has the “d” in those cases, just like with other verbs.