The title says it all, essentially. If you want to negate a phrase like “There used to be so and so back in the days”, is it “There didn’t use to be” or “There didn’t used to be”?
I would have guessed the former, since in all other cases where you want to negate a verb in the simple past you say “didn’t” plus the infinitive of the verb - the “didn’t” alone puts the whole phrase in the past, so there’s no need to do the same to the verb itself. But I’ve repeatedly seen “There didn’t used to be”. Which one is considered correct (or are both?)?
No, “used” is the past tense of the verb “to use” in an idiomatic use. Ordinarily the colloquial for “there formerly was…” will be “there used to be…”, nearly always in the past. But the negative construction (in American; I’ve seen “used not to be”) uses the auxiliary did, followed by the to-less infinitive.
Definitely “used”, not “use”. This explains it quite well: http://www.englishgrammarsecrets.com/usedto/menu.php
Although, I’m seeing “use”, as in “I use to do this, that or the other” being utilised more and more often, even in national newspapers.
And that’s what grinds my gears.
I disagree. I attended school (kindergarten through 12th grade) in the US, and I also learned that “used not to be” is the correct, standard English construction. “Didn’t use to be” and “Didn’t used to be” are nonstandard, even if they are common and accepted regional expressions.
All of these are colloquial anyway, and some are dialect. Here in the South, y’all, we say “used to could”. I used to could play piano but I haven’t played for years.
:dubious::dubious: “Used to be” seems like perfectly good English to me, entirely suitable for formal writing. Perhaps, however, you intended to say that “didn’t use[d] to be” is colloquial, and should not be used in formal writing. With that I emphatically agree. In formal contexts, one should use “used not to be.”
Given that “didn’t use[d] to be” is a colloquial and informal idiom, there is no real rule as to whether or not it should be “use” or “used.” Given that the D (if present) is followed by the T of “to,” the difference between the two versions is usually quite hard to hear anyway. I am sure both versions are current, and, very likely, most people who use the expression are not very certain which way they are saying it.
Standard usage doesn’t make something correct. However, I suppose it depends what kind of English Schnitte wants to learn/improve (learn sounds wrong since it’s already so much better than my lame attempts at any other language, but I believe their first language is German - or have I got that wrong?). In a business context, even with Americans, I would go for the formal, “correct” form.
I don’t know the term for it, but in literature (I* used to be * an English major). there’s a term which allows the use of (hope I spell this correctly) colloquali9sms for the sake of making one’s story more regionally “fitting”.
So what’s my point?
(I DO have one - just takes ne a bit to get there)
Whatever makes it easiest for your reader to understand - THAT’S what you use.
Quasi used to be an asshole. Still is, but now he’s an asshole who realizes he has friends who love him, and has limited time on the panet.
See how easy that was?
**Used to be ** hard!
“Used to be” is fine and if I were your English professor, I’d write: “More of the same, please!”
I believe the distinction is that you’re only supposed to use one past tense verb. It would be correct to say either “It did not use to be this hard to get out of bed in the morning” or “It used to not be this hard to get out of bed in the morning.” But “It did not used to be this hard to get out of bed in the morning” is incorrect because both did and used are past tense.
Thanks for the compliments. My native tongue is indeed German, and the type of English I’m working on is usually the “formal” style - simply for the reason that if you learn the “correct” standard version of a language, it’s easier to expand your knowledge to idiomatic or colloquial use and pick the right version depending on context than it is if you start with colloquial versions and want to make your language more formal at a later stage. Thus, it’s always good to be aware of regional or style differences, which this thread covered.
Thanks also to everyone else. It had never occurred to me that “there used to be” could be considered colloquial usage, but the obvious follow-up question (what would be the formal alternative then?) has already been covered: A construction with “formerly”.
