did used to

Josh Lalonde   Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:57 pm GMT
<<Sorry, Greg, I don't speak French. Could you write that message in English?>>

Here's my translation (apologies for any mistakes): "It's a line of thought I indicated to Travis because I know that he's interested in Germanic languages and their history." (I don't like "line of thought, but it's the best I could come up with right now.)
Travis   Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:45 am GMT
The matter is that "use to" is not an auxiliary or modal verb but rather a pseudomodal verb, like "have to", "need to", "want to", "be supposed to", "like to", and so on; that is, a verb that does not pattern like a modal or auxiliary verb that fits a modal or other auxiliary type role. The matter is that most pseudomodal verbs pattern like other normal verbs in English, and can be used with auxiliary and modal verbs and even other pseudomodal verbs; the only difference between "use to" and other pseudomodal verbs is that it lacks a present tense.
Travis   Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:47 am GMT
Whoops... I meant "quasimodal" when I wrote "pseudomodal" above.
Davidab   Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:41 pm GMT
<<I dared not ask
I didn't dare ask <

'Which one has the quasi form?'

The first form follows modal verb patterns when forming questions (moving the auxiliary verb before the subject rather than putting the auxiliary verb 'do') and negatives(just using 'not' rather than 'do' and 'not'.) The second forms questions and negatives like any ordinary verb.

1) dare I ask? I dare not ask
2) do I dare ask? I don't dare ask


David
Davidab   Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:50 pm GMT
a pseudomodal verb, like "have to", "need to", "want to", "be supposed to", "like to", and so on;

I meant "quasimodal" when I wrote "pseudomodal" above.

'need' has modal verb patterns:

need I say more?

You need not go there

In what way are 'have to' 'want to' 'be supposed to' 'like to' quasimodal verbs? They always form their questions and negatives using 'do' and never by changing position with the subject


David
Travis   Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:19 pm GMT
With respect to "need", we are effectively dealing with three different quantities here, "need" the normal verb, "need to" the quasimodal verb, and "need" the modal verb. "Need" the normal verb is just yet another normal English verb. "Need to" is a quasimodal verb which is bound to the "to" affix (I am not sure if I even want to call such a clitic at this point, as such seems to function like a bound morpheme today) but which is otherwise syntactically and morphologically normal except that it fits the semantic role of a modal verb aside from being more flexible than a modal verb proper. "Need" the modal verb, however, patterns like a true modal verb, including lacking the -"s" affix in the third person singular present indicative and not being modified in turn by other auxiliaries or modals.

>>In what way are 'have to' 'want to' 'be supposed to' 'like to' quasimodal verbs? They always form their questions and negatives using 'do' and never by changing position with the subject<<

You are missing what the term "quasimodal" signifies. What it means is that a verb is morphologically and syntactically normal, but it fits a modal verb-like role (and may even have replaced an actual modal verb in that role, such as "have to" replacing "must"). Furthermore, some quasimodal verbs, such as "have to" and "be supposed to", are not simply their normal counterparts with the affix or clitic "to" attached, as often assimilation of the rest of the verb to said "to" has become a frozen part of the quasimodal verb rather than being merely phonological in nature.
Josh Lalonde   Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:37 pm GMT
<<With respect to "need", we are effectively dealing with three different quantities here, "need" the normal verb, "need to" the quasimodal verb, and "need" the modal verb.>>

I think some examples would help.
Pos   Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:46 pm GMT
<"need" the modal verb.>

"Need" has never been a modal verb.
M56   Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:33 pm GMT
<"Need" has never been a modal verb. >

I'm only familiar with the full verb and the semi-modal use. It seems Travis feels he found a third use.
Pos   Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:49 pm GMT
Yes. It seems so.
Travis   Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:35 am GMT
"Need" does have a modal usage, even though it is not used all that much in many dialects of English today. Consider the usage of "need not" - it negates like a modal verb (in that "not" or "-n't" follows it without any auxiliary), it does not take auxiliary or modal verbs, and it does not take a "-s" inflection in the third person plural present indicative. For instance, one can say:

"He need not do that."

but one cannot say:

*"He needs not do that."
*"He doesn't need do that."
*"He can't need do that."

This is clearly the patterning of a modal verb, even though primarily the "need not" usage is found in English dialects today.
Pete   Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:24 am 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?>>

Because that's how "used to" is correctly pronounced.
M56   Tue Aug 07, 2007 4:57 am GMT
<Because that's how "used to" is correctly pronounced. >

Have you decided that all by yourself, or do you have a professional source which states it in writing?
furrykef   Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:34 pm GMT
There's no such thing as "correct" pronunciation, only standard and non-standard.
Pos   Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:40 pm GMT
<There's no such thing as "correct" pronunciation, only standard and non-standard.>

Isn't there also sub-standard?