did used to

Davidab   Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:01 pm GMT
<< The 'rules' never had any historical precedence in English, unlike the rule that says a conjugated verb cannot go after another conjugated verb in the same clause. This rule exists not only in English but in many other languages. >>

'What about the apparent that "do" can never be followed by an auxiliary verb, where this sense of "use" is the only exception I can think of?'

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'auxiliary verb'. Like 'use' 'dare' and 'need' have quasi-modal forms which alternate with ordinary negative forms.

I dared not ask
I didn't dare ask

'As I said before, either way, it's an exceptional case. It would be reasonable to argue that "use" is more historically sound, but my point was and is that "used" may not be as utterly nonsensical as it may seem at first.'


If it's followed by another auxiliary verb, that the auxiliary verb can never be in simple past or simple present. If it's 'use' it's the infinitive without to not the simple present. If it's 'used' it's past participle not the simple past

David
Pete   Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:15 pm GMT
I have no problem inserting two [t] sounds together in "used to" which makes it clearly distinct from "use to". Why do others have such difficulty?
Pete   Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:27 pm GMT
Why do we write them as "use to" and "used to" anyway? We should start writing them as "useto" and "usedto" instead, as well it makes it distinct from "used to" [juzd tu] "wood is used to make things".
Guest   Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:27 pm GMT
You learned English as a foreigner and probably learned how to read English from the beginning, so you feel a need to follow the written language in your speech. Native speakers learn the pronunciation of "use to" and "used to" before they learn how to read, and it is unnatural for them to change their pronunciation to match the spelling for phrases they already know.
beneficii   Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:37 am GMT
Guest,

<<You learned English as a foreigner and probably learned how to read English from the beginning, so you feel a need to follow the written language in your speech. Native speakers learn the pronunciation of "use to" and "used to" before they learn how to read, and it is unnatural for them to change their pronunciation to match the spelling for phrases they already know.>>

Agree 100%. That's one of the reasons I'm refusing to necessarily watch shows in Japanese with subtitles or rushing for the lyrics when I'm listening to a song.
Pos   Sun Aug 05, 2007 9:09 am GMT
<Why do we write them as "use to" and "used to" anyway? We should start writing them as "useto" and "usedto" instead, as well it makes it distinct from "used to" [juzd tu] "wood is used to make things". >

How about these? Should we begin writing each one diffrently?

bow - To bend forward at the waist in respect (e.g. "bow down")
bow - the front of the ship (e.g. "bow and stern")
bow - the weapon which fires arrows (e.g. "bow and arrow")
bow - a kind of tied ribbon (e.g. bow on a present, a bowtie)
bow - to bend outward at the sides (e.g. a "bow-legged" cowboy)
greg   Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:25 am GMT
Travis : « "Used to" seems to be a defective quasimodal verb; (...) it lacks a present form, and only has a preterite/past participle form ("used to") and an infinitive form ("use to"). »

Zwar ist es richtig was heutige Synchronie betrifft. In der Vergangenheit war es auch der Fall, so wie diese mittelenglischen Sätze hindeuten :

« A cowntesse of Gascoigne, of the childe of whom Galfride Plantagenet, fader to this kynge, come, was maryede oonly for her beawte, whiche cowntesse •••used to••• comme but selde to the churche, and when sche come to the churche sche taryede unnethe to the secretes of the masse. »

« Also forțermore oure lord Ihesu Criste goddis sone, țat leued here in țis world, as a wise marchaunte •••vsed to••• ches good marchaundyse & refused țe bad ; for when ței wold haue maade hym kynge of Iude, he refused it & ches rather to flee in to deserte, & when ței souȝt him to turment hym & to sle hym, he fled not but ches rather for to deye & seid Ego sum, I am he whome ȝe sech. »

Trotzdem werden (offensichtliche) konjugierte Formen auch gefunden :

« An other ensaumple y will tell you of them that •••usen to••• clatre, speke, and iangle atte the masse, in the whiche whanne thei shulde haue herde the deuyne seruice of God. »

« But nețeles devoute men țat be disposed to preie țanne, God forbede țat ței shulden be lettid ; but make we no general reule to undispose men on țe dai, whanne ței shulden do workes of liȝt. Wel I woot țat țeves •••usen to••• worche on nyȝt and slepe on țe dai, and so usen țese neue țeves țat comen in abov țe dore ; for Crist koude have tauȝt țis preier if it hadde more plesid him, as he koude hav tauȝte to preie, and lefte to preche his gospel to men. »

Il serait intéressant d'en savoir davantage sur [1] le remplacement de VA <brucan> → MA <bruken> <brouke> par AF <user> → MA <usen> — [2] la conjugaison de MA <usen> et l'établissement graduel du statut de <used to> ← <usen to>.
Pos   Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:32 am GMT
Greg, what's your point? How does all that relate to contemporary use?
greg   Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:29 pm GMT
Pos : c'est une piste de réflexion que j'indique à Travis car je sais qu'il s'intéresse aux langues germaniques et à leur histoire.
Pete   Sun Aug 05, 2007 8:59 pm GMT
<<How about these? Should we begin writing each one diffrently?

bow - To bend forward at the waist in respect (e.g. "bow down")
bow - the front of the ship (e.g. "bow and stern")
bow - the weapon which fires arrows (e.g. "bow and arrow")
bow - a kind of tied ribbon (e.g. bow on a present, a bowtie)>>

No, we should just write differently the one's which are pronounced differently. So, for instance, the first two should be spelled with a different spelling from the second two.
Guest   Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:25 pm GMT
<<I dared not ask
I didn't dare ask <

Which one has the quasi form?
Gwest   Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:28 pm GMT
<I have no problem inserting two [t] sounds together in "used to" which makes it clearly distinct from "use to". Why do others have such difficulty? >

The question is why. Why do you feel the need to insert two t sounds?
Pos   Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:30 pm GMT
<Pos : c'est une piste de réflexion que j'indique à Travis car je sais qu'il s'intéresse aux langues germaniques et à leur histoire. >

Sorry, Greg, I don't speak French. Could you write that message in English?
Pos   Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:31 pm GMT
<So, for instance, the first two should be spelled with a different spelling from the second two. >

Why? We all know that English is not phonetic. We all know that context is the key.
Pos   Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:33 pm GMT
<No, we should just write differently the one's which are pronounced differently.>

How would these new spellng look? Can you suggest how we should spell those words?