>On 6/14/2012 5:31 PM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>> Either "used to" is a modal (and thus invariant[1]), or it's a verb >> that does something no other verb in all of English does.
>If it's a modal (and I would agree that it is), it's still one that does
>something no other modal in English does. If you'd never say "you
>didn't ought to" or "you did can," can those modals really enlighten you
>on how to expect "used to" to behave after "did" or "didn't"?
>>>I worked at Boeing headquarters in Seattle and edited technical articles
>>>by other engineers (yes, I am an engineer), converting them from a bunch
>>>of gobbledygook to understandable English.
>>>I did that during slack times in logic circuit design -- my primary job.
>>> Later I got into programming and stuck with that for the rest of my
>>>career. Now I do nothing, other that writing questionable comments in AUE.
> On 6/14/2012 9:38 PM, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>> Glenn Knickerbocker<N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>>>> Anyhow, what I was trying to get at was how the lack of present
>>>> tense constructions might relate to whether the bare form "use to"
>>>> exists (which is what you were arguing against, right?) to be used in
>>>> past tense constructions.
>> But what I'm asking is how the "lack of present tense constructions"
>> tells us that there is no bare form.
> Wait, that's what *I* was asking.
> Do you mean how it tells us there *is* a bare form? I'm not saying it
> does. I just don't see how the pattern you describe tells us there
> *isn't* one.
If you could say 'didn't X', then you should be able to say 'X'. But for 'use to' you're not.
> In article <4b5pa9xp8p....@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-06-14, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>> What error? Peter's "didn't used to" is perfectly
>>> normal native English (at least for general American; I
>>> don't know about other countries' dialects).
>> But can you tell whether people are saying "didn't use
>> to" or "didn't used to"?
> Probably not, but Peter wrote "used", so presumably,
> that's what he thinks he's says. It's what I think I'm
> saying.
As an outlying data point, I think that I'm saying 'I used
to', 'I didn't use to', and 'I wasn't used to'.
> Though apparently, some people claim they pronounce "use
> to" and "used to" differently!
I can't guarantee that I always do so -- it's a small enough
difference that I probably don't -- but I certainly do at
least some of the time. Except in *very* careful speech
<use to> has /z/ and <used to> has /s/, though that's not
the only difference.
> A pretty consistent difference, with "didn't use to" being
> used approximately three times more than "didn't use to".
Three times as much. Two times more. (And yes, I know that
almost no one uses 'times more' that way, but I have seen
it, so I prefer to avoid the potential ambiguity.)
>> In article<4b5pa9xp8p....@news.ducksburg.com>,
>> Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-14, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>>>> What error? Peter's "didn't used to" is perfectly
>>>> normal native English (at least for general American; I
>>>> don't know about other countries' dialects).
>>> But can you tell whether people are saying "didn't use
>>> to" or "didn't used to"?
>> Probably not, but Peter wrote "used", so presumably,
>> that's what he thinks he's says. It's what I think I'm
>> saying.
> As an outlying data point, I think that I'm saying 'I used
> to', 'I didn't use to', and 'I wasn't used to'.
But if you do it on purpose, you could as well be saying 'utlise(d)'.
Nathan Sanders wrote:
> In article <jrdlna02...@drn.newsguy.com>,
> R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> Skitt filted:
>>> As for prevailing usage, Google hits are as follows:
>>> "Didn't use to" -- 306 million
>>> "Didn't used to" -- 31 million
>>> That's a fairly decent margin, not that Google hits are a reliable
>>> source of information, still ...
>> Especially in this case, where hits for the former are likely to be
>> inflated by
>> things like "bring me a screwdriver you didn't use to defrost the
>> freezer"....r
> Good point. Here are some longer strings that should have fewer such
> false hits:
> 130,000 "I didn't use to eat"
> 576,000 "I didn't used to eat"
> 62,700 "I didn't use to want"
> 156,000 "I didn't used to want"
> 189,000 "I didn't use to own"
> 549,000 "I didn't used to own"
> 45,400 "I didn't use to ride"
> 183,000 "I didn't used to ride"
> 426,000 "I didn't use to talk"
> 757,000 "I didn't used to talk"
> 899,000 "I didn't use to live"
> 4,810,000 "I didn't used to live"
> 1,060,000 "I didn't use to go"
> 4,000,000 "I didn't used to go"
> 1,290,000 "I didn't use to play"
> 3,650,000 "I didn't used to play"
> A pretty consistent difference, with "didn't use to" being used
> approximately three times more than "didn't use to".
What hits are you talking about? Google doesn't have anything like that number of hits.
Taking your "ride" example, for instance, it can only show me
28 "I didn't use to ride"
44 "I didn't used to ride"
-- Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
> On Jun 15, 3:43 am, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <d36b8f57-03d4-440e-a5e5-1db6a4a30...@h9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 14, 12:53 pm, Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > In article <4b5pa9xp8p....@news.ducksburg.com>,
> > > > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 2012-06-14, Nathan Sanders wrote:
> > > > > > What error? Peter's "didn't used to" is perfectly normal native
> > > > > > English (at least for general American; I don't know about other
> > > > > > countries' dialects).
> > > > > But can you tell whether people are saying "didn't use to" or "didn't
> > > > > used to"?
> > > > Probably not, but Peter wrote "used", so presumably, that's what he
> > > > thinks he's says. It's what I think I'm saying.
> > > Before I came back, someone adduced "never used to." Surely that's
> > > what triggers "didn't used to."
> > > > > > Some grammar mavens get their knickers in twists about spelling "used"
> > > > > > with a <d> when it's negated by "didn't", because they assume that
> > > > > > "used to" is the past tense of a verb, presumably "use to" meaning
> > > > > > 'have the habit of', and thus, insist upon the bare form of this verb
> > > > > > when other verbs would be in the bare form.
> > > > > > However, I'd argue that there no such verb "use to", based on the
> > > > > > following:
> > > > > Good examples, but what would you call this kind of "used to"?
> > > > As far as I can tell, it behaves syntactically just like "ought to",
> > > > so, a modal.
> > > > > A
> > > > > defective verb used as some kind of auxiliary? (In some ways, it
> > > > > could be like a modal, except that the use of "to" is abnormal for
> > > > > Germanic modals.)
> > > > That's how "ought to" works.
> > > > > When people *say* "I didn't use/used to...", can you tell whether they
> > > > > are saying "use" or "used"? If not, then there may be a case for
> > > > > spelling it "use".
> > > > I think the only case that can be made is that it should be spelled
> > > > the same way in every situation, since it is pronounced the same way.
> > > > Whether you spell it <use> or <used> doesn't really matter.
> > > > Spelling the word one way in one case, but a different way in another
> > > > case, despite it having the same pronunciation in both, seems perverse.
> > > And since it only ever occurs before "to," there's no evidence as to
> > > whether it "really" has a [-t] of its own.
> > Exactly.
> > Though apparently, some people claim they pronounce "use to" and "used
> > to" differently!
> Doesn't everybody? There's a 'd' to be pronounced in the second, so,
> of course, it sounds different.-
Really? Does <debt> "sound different" from <dett> to you? Does "steak"
sound different from "stake"? (Assuming the language that was beaten
into you in that elementary school you've bragged about was RP.)
> > Though apparently, some people claim they pronounce "use
> > to" and "used to" differently!
> I can't guarantee that I always do so -- it's a small enough
> difference that I probably don't -- but I certainly do at
> least some of the time. Except in *very* careful speech
> <use to> has /z/ and <used to> has /s/, though that's not
> the only difference.
We're not talking about the two different words in "That's the
screwdriver I used to use to pry the lids off paint cans," you know.
> Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Skitt <skit...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Weird, and somewhat troubling, as far as my results are concerned. Whom
>>> can one trust?
>>> (I still get the same results as before, by the way.)
>>That's really bizarre. Perhaps I have some additional hidden setting >>somewhere that is further limiting my safe-mode-off searches in some way.
> Remember that the two of you are almost CERTAINLY getting results from
> collections/databases that are at least slightly different, since you're not
> coming to Google from the exact same computer or with the exact same profile.
> It, because this is Good For You, massages the results at least a bit depending
> on what it thinks needs to be seen, where it's going to, the time of day or
> phase of the moon, etc...
"What's good for Google is good for America!"
-- War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.
[Ambrose Bierce]
> In article <jre16p$2n...@news.albasani.net>,
> Skitt <skit...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> There's quite a bit of change taking place in the language over the last
>> few decades. The immutable case of "X and I" (resulting in "between X
>> and I" and "this is for you and I"), and the improper formation of some
>> past or present participles (resulting in things like "we had saw that
>> with our own eyes").
>> These were obviously improper expressions some decades ago, but now they
>> are what I hear around me and on television daily.
>> Pretty soon these variants will become standard and have the full
>> blessing of linguists as "the usage that actually exists".
>> So be it, but I can't help feeling a little sad about it. I'm old ...
> Language evolves. Why should that be sad? It's exciting!
"Evolves" has a non-neutral connotation of improvement. (I'm not
saying language changes are bad, just that they aren't necessarily
good.)
> In article <hbspa9xp13....@news.ducksburg.com>,
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2012-06-14, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>> > In article <7nppa9xlo2....@news.ducksburg.com>,
>> > Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2012-06-14, Nathan Sanders wrote:
>> >> > Spelling the word one way in one case, but a different way in another >> >> > case, despite it having the same pronunciation in both, seems perverse.
>> >> Back the bus up a minute: we are talking about English, aren't we?
>> > The mapping between English spelling and pronunciation isn't always >> > transparent or logical, no, but I can't think of any verb that is >> > pronounced the same in the bare form and the past tense, but is >> > spelled differently.
>> True, but "read" is an example of the reverse discrepancy. Anyway,
>> you said "used to" is a modal, not a verb. :-P
> Right!
> Either "used to" is a modal (and thus invariant[1]), or it's a verb > that does something no other verb in all of English does.
I think it's an anomaly, rather different from the other modals.
>> >> Seriously, it's hard to tell what the pronunciation of the single word
>> >> "use(d)" is in "didn't use(d) to do that", because that kind of
>> >> "use(d)" can't (AFAICT) end a sentence or occur in isolation. It only
>> >> exists in the "used to" sequence.
>> > As I said elsewhere, I'm talking about "used to", not "use".
>> And I'm saying we can't (AFAICT) be sure from the audio stream alone
>> whether speakers are (in some internal sense) saying "didn't used to"
>> or "didn't use to", so why not use the spellings that match the
>> semi-parallel constructions like "didn't need to"?
> Why would "used to" parallel "need", if they aren't the same kind of > word? Shouldn't "used to" parallel words of the same type, like > "ought to" and "can"?
> [1] I don't think of "would/should/could/might" as past tense forms of > "will/shall/can/may", at least, not in the same way that "killed" and > "ran" are the past tense forms of "kill" and "run". For example, in > matrix clauses, these four "past tense" modals can have non-past > meanings, unlike true past tense forms of normal verbs:
I don't think they are past forms in *exactly* the same way as
"killed" & "ran"; I think their functions *include* some past tense
functions.
AFAICT, modals in Germanic in general are not invariant: they are
inflected a bit less than normal verbs --- in modern English that
turns out to mean nearly invariant because of the sparsity of
inflection on normal verbs.
-- The three-martini lunch is the epitome of American efficiency.
Where else can you get an earful, a bellyful and a snootful at
the same time? [Gerald Ford, 1978]
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:01:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>Once again -- what's the difference between the "two"? How can you
>_tell_ which "one" occurs on one place and which "one" in the other?
I didn't think my clumsy phoneticizations were so clumsy or my
descriptions so vague as to be incomprehensible. "Used to" has a brief
pause in the middle between closing and opening the "t"; "use to"
doesn't.
¬R <<Kibo, it should be noted, looked just like a planetary, wire-haired
grim stove clock, and always had a doggerel chimera around his neck. He
had dank hams and was ill and I think he ate his own pears teh enb.>> ¬R
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:15:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>On Jun 14, 10:59 pm, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>> Oh, you mean like the ones in "War Veterans"?
>Yes, I do. Do you not notice that you have to pause between them when
>you say it?
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:47:19 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>On Jun 14, 11:31 pm, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>> Except that the "to" is usually stressed when it's at the end of the
>> sentence (as it was in Peter's). Even "gonna" often becomes "gunnoo" at
>> the end of a sentence.
>(a) no it isn't.
If you say so. I haven't done a survey.
>(b) examples?
Sorry, I don't have a collection of recordings of speech of my friends
and family handy to share on Usenet.
¬R http://users.bestweb.net/~notr/cats "Would you like to watch a movie
about George Wendt while eating Chinese food with a cat?" --Andy Simmons
On Jun 15, 11:09 am, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:01:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >Once again -- what's the difference between the "two"? How can you
> >_tell_ which "one" occurs on one place and which "one" in the other?
> I didn't think my clumsy phoneticizations were so clumsy or my
> descriptions so vague as to be incomprehensible. "Used to" has a brief
> pause in the middle between closing and opening the "t"; "use to"
> doesn't.
And no one else in the entire English-speaking world can hear this
previously unmentioned "pause" -- two messages ago, you claimed "one
had a prolonged S ['jus:tu] where the other had a double T
['just:tu]." (You didn't say which one allegedly went with which
spelling.)
Such contradictory "descriptions" are very good evidence that the
whole thing is purely imaginary.
> In article <slrnjtlf52.e2o....@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>> Nathan Sanders <sand...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >1,290,000 "I didn't use to play"
>> >3,650,000 "I didn't used to play"
>> >A pretty consistent difference, with "didn't use to" being used >> >approximately three times more than "didn't use to".
>> Er, I'm FAIRLY sure that first one should have the d on it?
> Yes, oops! I must have hypercorrected!
That'll learn you!
-- No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]
On Jun 15, 11:14 am, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:15:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >On Jun 14, 10:59 pm, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> >> Oh, you mean like the ones in "War Veterans"?
> >Yes, I do. Do you not notice that you have to pause between them when
> >you say it?
> Um, no.
Yet you are able to "hear" a nonexistent pause when a certain
expression is spelled either <use to> or <used to>.
On Jun 15, 11:24 am, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:47:19 -0700 (PDT), Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >On Jun 14, 11:31 pm, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> >> Except that the "to" is usually stressed when it's at the end of the
> >> sentence (as it was in Peter's). Even "gonna" often becomes "gunnoo" at
> >> the end of a sentence.
> >(a) no it isn't.
> If you say so. I haven't done a survey.
> >(b) examples?
> Sorry, I don't have a collection of recordings of speech of my friends
> and family handy to share on Usenet.
You can't even provide an example from your own introspection?
