If people use it as an auxiliary verb, which they are in the examples you give when they invert it with the subject and give it a negative inflected form, then it’s certainly an auxiliary verb in their dialect. Such a thing sounds utterly foreign to me, which I think suggests that it’s not frequently used that way in these parts, but there’s a huge range of dialects in English.
It’s still not quite typical of a modal verb, since it’s followed by the particle “to” and then a verb in the plain form, whereas modal verbs don’t need that “to”; that would make it, in my opinion, an auxiliary but not a modal (rather, it’s in a class with have, do, and be.)
Weird. You criticize me for not providing any cite. Then you make an argument identical in form to mine. (“Here’s how I imagine I would use the word, therefore, this usage is probably the standard one.”) You also did not provide any citations. And yet you seem to think you’ve made a point which is better than mine.
What kind of cite are you looking for? Could you please provide me with a cite confirming the truth of your view that “didn’t use to” is considered to be perfectly okay usage in all contexts in standard English?
I actually don’t think “cites” are important in informal, preliminary discussions of linguistic issues–in discussions like the present one, for example. Linguistic introspection is a perfectly well established method for beginning to develop theories on subjects like this. The logic of it is: “I know I have usage X in my competency, and it is highly unlikely that I am unique or unusual in this regard since my competency in the language has never been questioned by other speakers of the language. Therefore, it is very likely my usage is a standard one.” Even better–if I can find even just one more person who agrees with my judgment, the hypothesis is vastly more well-supported. If the chances that I am a linguistic freak are low, the chances that there are two such people identically freaky are astronomical.
There are at least three people in this thread who agree with my own judgment here. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely–I’m inclined to assert certainty here–that this is “my own personal deal.” At the very least its becoming clear that there are two substantial linguistic sub-communities who differentiate along lines we are discussing.
Not in the slightest. I think that my personal feeling on the issue is of exactly the same value as yours - zero. Everyone knows how they talk (well, not really, as people’s self-reports on their speech are notoriously unreliable). But you’re making an argument that a usage is nonstandard because you think that careful people avoid it. I have never noticed any difference in usage between “used to” and “didn’t use to”. See? We’re at an impasse. That’s why your argument about what you think is “standard English” is useless - because other speakers of standard English disagree.
I didn’t say any such thing. Reread my post if you’re confused by my words. At this point, this discussion is over, as you are now misrepresenting what I said. Incidentally, you might consider chilling out.
And I think that my own instinct regarding it is just as valid as yours. Except that our two instincts tell us entirely separate things! My God, whatever is an empiricist to do?
It’s almost like we’d actually have to gather and examine data to come to any real conclusion! Who’da thunk it?
Actually, under any present-day linguistic theory I’m aware of, everyone’s personal usage or “idiolect” is treated as subtly different from everyone else’s. So if it turns out that your own usage is unique, or shared by some people, it might be some particular quirk of your own I-language, or some areal feature that doesn’t exist where I am, or just a phenomenon that some people have and some don’t, it shouldn’t be a surprise at all. Which is exactly why trying to make a declaration about “standard English” based on your own guesses is foolish.
Wait, so you understand that different people talk differently. But your usage is “standard English” and mine is not? On what basis do you make that claim?
As I indicated earlier, given your deceptive characterization of my words, I will not discuss this any more. I recommend that you reread what I wrote and see if it merits the bizarre overreaction you responded with.
Please do respond. I don’t think its necessary for tempers to flare. And as you’ll see below, I can assure you mine has not.
Right, and I think my personal feeling on the isue is of exactly the same value as yours as well. I don’t know if I’d say it’s “zero” but that’s neither here nor there.
I can’t figure out why you think I would disagree with any of the above.
The above-quoted was in response to my request: “Could you please provide me with a cite confirming the truth of your view that ‘didn’t use to’ is considered to be perfectly okay usage in all contexts in standard English?”
Now, I think you did say (strongly conversationally imply) what I said you said. But I don’t think it’s that big a deal that you said (strongly conversationally implied) it, or taht I think you said (strongly conversationally implied) it. I’m not trying to be “deceptive.” I’m just explaining my reading of your post, and responding to your post as I’ve read it.
If my reading is wrong, then my reading is wrong, and that’s okay. I can be corrected.
I’ll explain how I arrived at my reading though:
Here’s where you said that “didn’t use to” is considered to be perfectly okay usage in all contexts in standard English:
“I think this is just yuor own personal deal” amounts to a politely hedged assertion “This is just your own personal deal.” “This” here refers to the hypothesis about usage that “didn’t use to” is in some sense nostandard. So, you are saying here, “It is just your personal deal to think ‘didn’t use to’ is in some sense nonstandard.” It follows from that assertion that either no one has an opinion about the standard usage of “didn’t use to” (other than me) or everyone has an opinion about standard usage which differs from mine. The former option is absurd, so the latter is what you meant. Now, by that you might have meant either “Everyone has a different opinion on usage,” or “Everyone shares the same opinion–and that opinion differs from yours.” There are of course a great number of other options between these two extremes, but the gist of what I’m saying here is clear. Now, the first possibility wouldn’t make sense in the conversational context. This leaves the second possibility.
What is that same opinion that you are saying everyone shares (or most people, or the standard speakers, or whatever)? In conversational context its clear what you’re referring to–the view which I was responding against, namely, the view that “didn’t use to” is considered perfectly normal and standard in all conversational contexts.
Eh? :dubious: We’re just chatting here. I did say you did something weird. Was that out of line? I also asked you to provide a cite, in response to your providing me a cite. I did it in a marked way by prefacing it with a “could you please.” This was intended to be a little cheeky. Was that, too, out of line?
Do studies.
Exactly.
I really don’t understand why you think you’re making any points against what I’ve said in this thread. I agree with most everything you’ve said in the post I’m presently responding to.
“Foolish”?
Really?
That’s the word you want to use?
“You might consider chilling out”!
When you thought I was misreading your post, you called my summary “deceptive.” I, however, will not say you are being “deceptive.” You have simply misread my post.
I think my impression as to what is standard usage is accurate, for some substantial group of speakers of English. I think your impression as to what standard usage is may or may not be accurate. But I do not share your impression.
That is all I am licensed to say. And it’s all I have said.
In fact, I started out maybe saying a little more than that, but in my last post, I explicitly took back some of that, saying maybe there’s just two linguistic sub-communities involved here.
Please do respond. I don’t think it is necessary for tempers to flare.
In my posts, I do not intend to be talking about how people actually use language. I intend to be talking about how people think they use it, and how people think they ought to be using it.
In one of my first posts, I made this distinction, but the distinction can easily have become unclear since then.
I distinguish between different senses of “standard.” I think “didn’t use to” is utterly standard in one sense. I also think it is non-standard in another sense.
My thinking it is non-standard in the sense I’ve explicated previously is based on my own introspection into–not my own usage but–my own attitudes toward usage. Yes, introspection into usage is famously innaccurate. But introspection into one’s own attitudes is likely to be far more accurate. And generalization from one’s own attitudes to a sentence “probably most people in my community think/feel this way,” in the absence of evidence against the sentence, is generally a safe inference, I think.
Truly you have a dizzying intellect. I admire your ability to use logic to prove that I said something that I did not.
And yet we have this confusion. Perhaps it’s because you’ve ignored the evidence that has been offered that other members of your speech community disagree with you.
I don’t see how I could have ignored evidence to that effect, since I fully agree with it.
Okay, here’s what will fix this up.
It is a fact that members of (at least one of my) speech community(ies) disagree with me when I say “It is appropriate to avoid ‘didn’t used to’ when trying to speak carefully in certain contexts.”
I agree with that sentence. I believe it is a fact.
You implied in your last post that that fact (or one much like it) is incompatible with something I’ve said in this thread. I don’t know what it is supposed to be incompatible with. If you tell me, I might finally understand what you’re trying to help me understand. (Or, I might finally understand how to correct a misunderstanding that you have have as to the point I’m, trying to make.)
-Kris
(As to my dizzying intellect, I think it would be interesting to see what you think is the fatal flaw in the argument I gave.)
In many dialects, you can say something like “I used to could do that.”
I can’t off the top of my head think of any other auxilliary that I could put before “could” in that fashion, but if there is one, that may give a clue how “used to” is operating in the dialects I’m speaking of.
“Used to” is also used in some dialects as, I don’t remember the terminology but, something like an “introductory particle,” like “however” or “hopefully.” “Used to, we went to the store every day.”
That’s why I suggested it was a semi-modal; like “have to” and “need to”. I was using shorthand when I said modal, more correctly they are modal auxiliaries. In fact my Irish husband makes questions using “used you” and the bare infinitive “Used you eat … ?”
Standard English generally permits up to one modal auxiliary, possibly followed by have and then be: “She might have eaten the cake.” “John must have been sleeping.” “Vanessa might be studying.” And so forth. But obviously lots of non-standard varieties permit more than one auxiliary (to anyone reading who’s familiar with Chomskyan syntax, this feature of non-standard English dialects strikes me as rather a blow to his formulation of “tense phrases” or “inflectional phrases” or whatever they’re called.) Obviously the standard English use of these things is considerably simpler than the actual diversity present in English dialects.
That was me you were replying to, not Frylock.
I can’t recall ever hearing such usage, but as far as I remember, what you’re describing fits the definition of “modal auxiliary” perfectly. “Need” is actually an interesting example because it exists in parallel uses - in “I need to mow the lawn”, it’s not operating as an auxiliary, modal or not. But it still exists as a modal verb in slightly old-fashioned - “You needn’t stir the sauce so often”, “He need not worry about his children”, etc. In this modal use, it has an inflectional negative (a contraction) and it precedes the negative particle, both of which are traits of auxiliary verbs. Further, it doesn’t have a distinct form for the third person singular, which is one of the tests of modal verbs. As far as I can see (correct me if I’m wrong) but “used”, when used as Cat Jones’ husband does, is a perfect example of a modal auxiliary. Whereas the fact that it can’t have “not” directly attached to it in standard American English means that in this particular dialect it’s not really an auxiliary at all, but I would be inclined to think that it has certain auxiliary-like characteristics in American English.
How does the “didn’t use to” camp reconcile the fact that the form “use to” has no apparent meaning by itself? Giles’ example of “I went there” versus “I didn’t go there” seems valid because “go there” is a valid and meaningful form of “went there”, but I’m not sure the same can be said about “use to” and “used to”. It’s not the verb to use to. You’d never say “I will use to” or “I was using to.”
It seems like the answer here is related to what the exact meaning of “used to” is (which is basically the OP’s question): what part of speech is it? My gut (and this is just a gut) is that the “didn’t use to” camp is treating it like a verb (like ‘cease’ in “I ceased to skydive” / “I didn’t cease to skydive”) when it’s not (like ‘once’ in “I once skydived” / “I didn’t once skydive”).
I really have no idea what you’re asking here. But for your question about what part of speech “used to” is, “used” is a verb and “to” is traditionally treated as a particle used to mark a verb with an infinitival interpretation. Your analysis of “used” as something other than a verb fails because “skydive” is clearly operating as an infinitive: “I used to skydive” but “She used to skydive”. You can tell that “skydive” must be an infinitive (well, technically, that it’s in the plain form) because it lacks the third person singular -s inflectional ending in the second sentence: “She used to skydives” is impossible.
What I’m getting at is the idea that the phrase “used to skydive” may not consist of the past-tense verb “used” and the infinitive “to skydive”, but of the atomic construct “used to” which means “did at one time” and the verb “skydive”.
I haven’t seen any convincing argument either way here, and the awkwardness of both “didn’t use to” and “didn’t used to” leaves me pretty skeptical the matter is settled.
I should say “The idea might be that” rather than that it “is that,” since I don’t think anyone’s actually offered the analogy I just gave on this thread.
Your request for a reconciliation between the useage “didn’t use to” and the fact that “use to” can’t be used as a positive verb may be moot, depending on your intention. It’s not that people are saying there is a rule generating “didn’t use to” and that this is what makes it correct. Rather, it’s just that people are saying they do use this usage.
-Kris
(In fact, I always thought people who used this were saying “didn’t used to.” I think some probably are saying that.
On one understanding of standard english, that’s completely ungrammatical–it can’t be reconciled with what people think are the rules of english grammar. But it’s still a perfectly sensible usage, independently of its reconcilability with this or that set of grammatical rules.)
