used to / am used to / get used
Carsten Junker Thomsen
I used to
I am used to
I get use to
Can you help me and explain... can you give some good examples?
By the way:
1) "I used to" is past... Can you say "I use to" when you talk about the
present...?
2) "I am used to" is present... Can you say "I was used to" when you talk
about the past...?
3) "I get use to..." is present... Can you say "I got use to..." when you
talk about the past...?
I'm very confused............ Please, help me!!!
Best regards
Carsten J. Thomsen
callisto(remove_this)@get2net.dk
--
Carsten Junker Thomsen * Ronnevangshusene 3,1.th. * 2630 Taastrup * Denmark
Tlf.: 43 52 62 00 * Fax: 43 71 24 18 * Mobiltlf.: 26 55 15 80
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Carsten Junker Thomsen said:
: I always mix up these...
:
: I used to
: I am used to
: I get use to
:
: Can you help me and explain... can you give some good examples?
I'll have a go.
'I used to' is something you were doing in the past. 'I used to go
swimming on Sundays, but now they have closed the pool I can't go any more.'
'I am used to' is about habit and custom. 'I am used to drinking two pots
of espresso coffee every morning whilst reading the newsgroups.'
Maybe someone else can comment on 'I get use to'; I keep saying it over in
my head, and feel it might be better written as 'I get used to'. This would
be about a habit I am currently acquiring, perhaps reluctantly....... 'It
annoys me there's dog poo on the pavements near my house, but I just have to
get used to it.' 'It's so cold in my house at the moment, but if I don't
get used to it I'll go mad.'
: By the way:
: 1) "I used to" is past... Can you say "I use to" when you talk about the
: present...?
I don't think so.
'I used to go swimming' becomes 'I am used to going swimming.'
: 2) "I am used to" is present... Can you say "I was used to" when you talk
: about the past...?
I think so.
'I am used to two pots of espresso' becomes 'I was used to two pots of
espresso.'
: 3) "I get use to..." is present... Can you say "I got use to..." when you
: talk about the past...?
As I said above, I'm not sure about 'I get use to'....... I *think* it's 'I
get used to'.
'I get used to the dog mess' becomes 'I got used to the dog mess'.
:
: I'm very confused............ Please, help me!!!
I'm very confused too; but I am used to it.
--
rud...@ntlworld.com - Nottingham UK - www.lizardnet.freeserve.co.uk
Matthew M. Huntbach
> I always mix up these...
> I used to
> I am used to
> I get use to
"I used to" is followed by a verb phrase, and indicates something
that was habitually done in the past:
"I used to smoke cigarettes, but I gave up for health reasons".
"I am used to" is followed by a noun phrase and indicates something with
which one is familiar:
"I am used to the cold weather in this country"
There is also an undertone of not only being familiar with it but also
of being able to tolerate it. Maybe you are thinking of it as a tense
form because the noun phrase is often a gerund:
"I am used to eating the poor food they serve here".
The "to be" verb can be in any tense, for example:
"I was used to the cold weather in this country, but after living
in Africa for a year I've found it hard to keep warm here".
"I will be used to the cold weather after I've been back for a week".
There is no such form as "I get use to". I thought this was just a typo
for the correct "I get used to", but you repeated it in your later
example. It's easy to see how in rapid speech "I get used to" might sound
like "I get use to" but the former is always correct, and the latter never
grammatical. "I get used to" indicates progressing towards the situation
of being used to something:
"I get used to the cold weather here after being back for a week".
would be said by someone who habitually visits and each time takes
a week to reach the position of tolerating the cold weather. Compare
that to the previous example, where there is less of an indication
of this being a regular happening. However, the "to get" verb can also be
in any tense, and
"I will get used to the cold weather after I've been back for a week"
means something very similar to the "I will be used" form. In fact I
would guess most speakers of English would find it hard to state what
or whether there is a difference in meaning between the two, but the
"be used" form seems to indicate a greater certainty of belief than the
"get used" form.
"I was getting used to the cold weather here"
would indicate someone who was reaching the position of being able
to tolerate the cold weather but was interrupted in that progression
by something else so did not reach the position of being able to say
then "I am used to the cold weather here" and now "I was used to the
cold weather here".
Matthew Huntbach
R Fontana
> I always mix up these...
>
> I used to
> I am used to
> I get use to
>
> Can you help me and explain... can you give some good examples?
"I used to" + (infinitive) verb describes habitual activity in the past.
"I used to live in Maine" = during some period in the past I lived in
Maine. "I used to eat meat" = in the past I would eat meat.
"I am used to": means "I am accustomed to". "I am used to
life in Maine" or "I am used to living in Maine" means "I am accustomed to
life/living in Maine".
"I get use to": this is probably a mistyping of "I get used to", which
means (at least in AmE) "I become accustomed to". "I got used to living
in Maine" = "I became accustomed to living in Maine".
> By the way:
> 1) "I used to" is past... Can you say "I use to" when you talk about the
> present...?
Not in contemporary American English, though one contemporary American
English speaker, AUE's Bob Cunningham, has I believe advocted the
reintroduction of a similar usage into the language, and I don't think he
regards it as obsolete. British English speakers may provide a different
answer here. Note that many people misspell this "used to" as "use to",
since "used to" here is not pronounced like the other "used", /juzd/, but
is pronounced /justu/ (the "used" part thus is pronounced like the noun
"use", but not the verb "use").
> 2) "I am used to" is present... Can you say "I was used to" when you talk
> about the past...?
Yes. "I was used to living in Maine, and so when we moved to McLean, Va.
it took me quite a while to adjust".
> 3) "I get use to..." is present... Can you say "I got use to..." when you
> talk about the past...?
Yes; I think I gave an example of this above. Note that this "get" is the
"get" that means "become" (which is somewhat more informal than "become").
R Fontana
Sorry, I ignored your repeated spelling mistake here. "I got use to" is
not correct; it should be "I got used to".
Richard Witherden
> 1) "I used to" is past... Can you say "I use to" when you talk about the
> present...?
no
I used to work hard in the past
I am used to working hard in the present because I am a workaholic
> 2) "I am used to" is present... Can you say "I was used to" when you talk
> about the past...?
yes
In the old days I was used to working hard because computers hadn't
been invented.
> 3) "I get use to..." is present... Can you say "I got use to..." when you
> talk about the past...?
yes
Now I get use to getting up early to start work.
I got used to staying in bed before I started this job. (used)
--
Tel: 01978 861863 Fax: 01978869168 Mobile: 07761533534
Address: Geraint, Llangollen, Denbighshire, LL20 8AA, UK
r.wit...@zetnet.co.uk
Omnia Vinces Perseverando
mike_l...@my-deja.com
100...@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>,
No, it's "got useD to". (I think RF's answer contains a slip.) The
basic question form is "Did you use to..?" More formal speakers use the
negative "I used not to ..", but in general people say "I didn't use
to .."
Please don't think me rude, but I think that if you are having problems
with "used to", then you probably need to check a lot of other words
and structures, too.
The best reference book I know for learners is Michael Swan's
*Practical English Usage*, ISBN 019431197X, published by Oxford
University Press; it's UK£14.40 at Amazon. I think owning it would
improve your life! (I use it myself, even though it's written for
foreign students.)
You can't rely on us on the Internet.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Bob Cunningham
said:
>On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Carsten Junker Thomsen wrote:
[...]
>> By the way:
>> 1) "I used to" is past... Can you say "I use to" when you talk about the
>> present...?
>Not in contemporary American English, though one contemporary American
>English speaker, AUE's Bob Cunningham, has I believe advocted the
>reintroduction of a similar usage into the language, and I don't think he
>regards it as obsolete.
I don't think I said that it wasn't obsolete. It's obsolete according
to the strict definition of obsolete, "no longer in use". However,
some people would think of "obsolete" as being equivalent to "dead".
I don't think the use in the present and future tenses of the phrase
"use to" in the sense "be accustomed to" is dead; I think it's just
going through a very long dormant period, which may or may not
continue forever.
I think I have said that I would welcome it's rejuvenation, and I've
said that even now I would readily accept and understand a statement
like:
After I retire, I will use to visit the park more often.
When I try to say the same thing without "use to", nothing I can think
of is so concise and elegant.
Note that "I will visit the park more often" doesn't have quite the
same meaning. It refers to events that will take place, while the
statement with "I will use to" refers to a habit that will be formed.
>British English speakers may provide a different
>answer here. Note that many people misspell this "used to" as "use to",
>since "used to" here is not pronounced like the other "used", /juzd/, but
>is pronounced /justu/ (the "used" part thus is pronounced like the noun
>"use", but not the verb "use").
>> 2) "I am used to" is present... Can you say "I was used to" when you talk
>> about the past...?
>Yes. "I was used to living in Maine, and so when we moved to McLean, Va.
>it took me quite a while to adjust".
But it's important to emphasize that this represents a different
meaning of the word "use". The "use"s in "I used to do it" and "I was
used to doing it" can be thought of as two different words that happen
to be spelled the same.
Ian Wade
<spa...@alt-usage-english.org> writes
>I think I have said that I would welcome it's rejuvenation, and I've
>said that even now I would readily accept and understand a statement
>like:
>
> After I retire, I will use to visit the park more often.
A note to non-native speakers: this is weird, and you will never hear it
spoken this way in England by a native :-)) Say instead:
After I retire, I will get used to (or will become accustomed to)
visiting the park more often.
--
Ian Wade
Ian Wade
>
>I think I have said that I would welcome it's rejuvenation,
And to be *really* pedantic, this should read ".... welcome its
rejuvenation".
That is, "its" without the apostrophe.
For learners of English, "it's" with the apostrophe is a contraction of
"it is" or "it has". It is not used in ANY other sense and does not have
ANY other meaning -- specifically, it's never used in a possessive
sense, even though it's been written that way in the example above.
--
Ian Wade
Bob Cunningham
said:
Yes, indeed. Writing "it's" for "its" is a typo that has been much
discussed in AUE. We all know perfectly well the difference between
"it's" and "its", and we also know that sometimes our fingers type
things that our headbone wouldn't approve of if it weren't busy
thinking of something else.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Carsten Junker Thomsen said:
>
> : By the way:
> : 1) "I used to" is past... Can you say "I use to" when you talk
> : about the present...?
>
> I don't think so.
You used to be able to, but not anymore. I did see an example on a
slide at a talk a couple of years ago. The speaker was not a native
English speaker, and it took a bit of thought to realize that he meant
"are customarily". Ah, there's the slide:
If they do the job, then they use to be more efficient than EA.
(Hans-Paul Schwefel, _Introduction to Evolution Strategies_, GECCO '99
Tutorials, p. 325.) As a native English speaker, I read it as a typo
for "used to", but then got confused because I expected him to go on
to explain why that was true in the past but not now, which he didn't.
It wasn't until he got to that part of the talk that it became
apparent that he was making an assertion about the present.
> 'I used to go swimming' becomes 'I am used to going swimming.'
More likely "I go swimming".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The whole idea of our government is
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |this: if enough people get together
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and act in concert, they can take
|something and not pay for it.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
Carsten Junker Thomsen
> Please don't think me rude, but I think that if you are having problems
> with "used to", then you probably need to check a lot of other words
> and structures, too.
Listen, it was a fault that I typed "get use" instead of "get used" ...
I know i didn't type the "d" - big mistake!!!
A mistyping!
I don't feel that I usually have problems with rembering the "d" in "get
used to".
Although, I admitedly still have lots of problems in English!
Haven't you ever been learning a foreign language!
I have Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage"
and you are right: It's a excellent book!
Still I could miss a "d" from time to time!
As you see in the headline (subject) I did it right with a "d"!
Regards
Carsten J. Thomsen
Carsten Junker Thomsen
It was a mistyping... sorry!
Thanks for your help in the earlier posting!
From R Fontana's explanation, I can see, that there's the following
difference between
"I used to" and " I was used to"
"I used to" describes habitual activity in the past.
"I was used to" means "I was accustomed to" in the past.
There is - as far as I can see - a slight difference in the meaning, whether
you talk about something you did as habitual activity in the past
or
you talk about something you were accustomed to in the past.
So far - so good!
But then I can't understand, that you in the present aren't able to
emphasise the slight difference between "what you do as an habitual activity
in the present"
and "what you are accustomed to in the present" like you can in the past!
You can say "I am used to"
but you can't say "I use to" - so that's why I'm confused!
It annoys me quite a lot - because I see a slight difference between
"I was used to" and "I used to"
Then I feel I need to emphasise the slight difference when I talk about the
present!
but I can't conjugate "I used to..." to the present to emphasise these...
Maybe someone can help me ?
Maybe this question sounds silly for a native English speaker!
But you know as a foreigner speaker, one can have small annoying problems
that a native speaker don't even can see...
Best regards
Carsten Junker Thomsen
Donna Richoux
> From R Fontana's explanation, I can see, that there's the following
> difference between
> "I used to" and " I was used to"
>
> "I used to" describes habitual activity in the past.
> "I was used to" means "I was accustomed to" in the past.
>
> There is - as far as I can see - a slight difference in the meaning, whether
> you talk about something you did as habitual activity in the past
> or
> you talk about something you were accustomed to in the past.
>
> So far - so good!
> But then I can't understand, that you in the present aren't able to
> emphasise the slight difference between "what you do as an habitual activity
> in the present"
> and "what you are accustomed to in the present" like you can in the past!
But you can. You can use "to be used to" in the present.
"I'm used to it now. Long ago, it used to surprise me, but now I'm
accustomed to it, I'm used to it."
"I used to (PAST) hate that teacher, but now I'm used (PRESENT) to
her."
The pronunciation of the two yoosta's (used to) is slightly different.
Stress the one that means the present, a little, while with the other
one you stress the verb that accompanies it.
"I used to HATE that teacher but now I'm USED to her."
--
Best --- Donna Richoux
Alec "Skitt" P.
"Carsten Junker Thomsen" <callisto(remove_this)@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:W1K96.527$Ab1....@news.get2net.dk...
> Dear Mike!
>
>
> > Please don't think me rude, but I think that if you are having problems
> > with "used to", then you probably need to check a lot of other words
> > and structures, too.
>
> Listen, it was a fault that I typed "get use" instead of "get used" ...
> I know i didn't type the "d" - big mistake!!!
> A mistyping!
The problem lies in making a mistake in the very thing that you are
inquiring about. How is one to guess your intent?
> I don't feel that I usually have problems with rembering the "d" in "get
> used to".
How could that be known here?
> Although, I admitedly still have lots of problems in English!
> Haven't you ever been learning a foreign language!
Sure, English is my third language.
> I have Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage"
> and you are right: It's a excellent book!
... an excellent book.
>
> Still I could miss a "d" from time to time!
> As you see in the headline (subject) I did it right with a "d"!
Many don't pay much attention to the Subject line.
Cheers! Your English is quite good, by the way.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
perchprism
> Of course "get use to" should have been "get used to"
> It was a mistyping... sorry!
>
> Thanks for your help in the earlier posting!
>
> From R Fontana's explanation, I can see, that there's the following
> difference between
> "I used to" and " I was used to"
>
> "I used to" describes habitual activity in the past.
> "I was used to" means "I was accustomed to" in the past.
>
> There is - as far as I can see - a slight difference in the meaning,
whether
> you talk about something you did as habitual activity in the past
> or
> you talk about something you were accustomed to in the past.
>
> So far - so good!
> But then I can't understand, that you in the present aren't able to
> emphasise the slight difference between "what you do as an habitual
activity
> in the present"
> and "what you are accustomed to in the present" like you can in the past!
>
> You can say "I am used to"
> but you can't say "I use to" - so that's why I'm confused!
[snip]
The reason is that "used to" meaning "did formerly" is unalterably past in
sense, because "used" is the verb, and it's a set form. I think that this
was not always the case in English--I seem to remember reading older stuff
that had things like "I will use to spin."
"Used to" meaning "accustomed to" requires a form of some verb in front of
it, which allows conjugation, and "used" is an adjective. We "get" used to
it, "became," "will be," maybe even "did feel" or "are being made" used to
it.
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Carmen L. Abruzzi
----------
In article <X1K96.528$Ab1....@news.get2net.dk>, "Carsten Junker
Thomsen" <callisto(remove_this)@get2net.dk> wrote:
>Of course "get use to" should have been "get used to"
>It was a mistyping... sorry!
>
>Thanks for your help in the earlier posting!
>
>From R Fontana's explanation, I can see, that there's the following
>difference between
>"I used to" and " I was used to"
>
>"I used to" describes habitual activity in the past.
>"I was used to" means "I was accustomed to" in the past.
>
>There is - as far as I can see - a slight difference in the meaning,
>whether
>you talk about something you did as habitual activity in the past
>or
>you talk about something you were accustomed to in the past.
There really is a great deal of difference syntactically and
semantically. "I/you/he,she,it/we/they used to <verb>" is best
thought of as a tense (or an aspect, really) of the <verb>. Its
meaning is close to that of the imperfect tense in Latin, Spanish
or Italian, referring to something that was done regularly, or
was true for an extended period of time in the past (I used to
know all the capitals in Europe, but I've forgotten them).
In "I am used to...", "I got used to...", etc., "used" is best
thought of as an adjective, meaning something like "accustomed",
although it has nuances of "able to tolerate" or "habituated".
"I used to swim" does not really mean the same as "I was used to
swimming", although both do imply that the speaker once swam on a
regular basis. It is perfectly possible to say "I used to swim,
but I never got used to it". This would mean that although the
speaker swam regularly for a time, he never really liked it.
>
>So far - so good!
>But then I can't understand, that you in the present aren't able to
>emphasise the slight difference between "what you do as an habitual
>activity
>in the present"
>and "what you are accustomed to in the present" like you can in the
>past!
>
>You can say "I am used to"
>but you can't say "I use to" - so that's why I'm confused!
>
>It annoys me quite a lot - because I see a slight difference between
>"I was used to" and "I used to"
>
>Then I feel I need to emphasise the slight difference when I talk about
>the
>present!
>but I can't conjugate "I used to..." to the present to emphasise
>these...
>
>Maybe someone can help me ?
Well, it certainly doesn't make a neat paradigm, but the present
tense equivalent of "I used to swim" is the so-called simple
present "I swim". In English, this simple-present can never be
taken to mean that "I" am swimming at this very moment, for that
one must say "I am swimming"#. "I swim" means that I regularly
propel myself through a body of water, although I am probably not
doing so at the moment that I utter the phrase. Usually, further
qualification is needed with this tense. "I swim" sounds almost
ridiculously "cosmic" on its own, one would usually say e.g., "I
swim /every Monday morning/when the water is warm/when the pool
is open/whenever I can/in the shallow end/so that my children
will learn how/for exercise/" etc.
#There is a class of verbs which cannot form this "am <verb>ing"
progressive form. These include many verbs of perception or
state, like "know", "see" (except when it means "to meet with" or
"to date" someone), "seem", "own" and others. Well, actually,
these can occasionally form the present progressive, but then
they signify an ongoing change in the quality of the thing
perceived, like "I am seeing better since the operation". Even
here, "I can see better since the operation" would be more usual.
The clearest exposition of these differences that I have found
is in A. Sihler's _New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin_
(Hardcover - 686 pages (January 1995) Oxford Univ Press; ISBN:
0195083458), at the beginning of the chapter on verbs, I believe.
He is discussing the probable semantics of verbal forms in
Indo-European, but uses English forms as examples of the
different nuances.
>
>Maybe this question sounds silly for a native English speaker!
>But you know as a foreigner speaker, one can have small annoying
>problems
>that a native speaker don't even can see...
>
"...that a native speaker can't even see." The modal verbs, such
as "can, will, shall, would, should, may, might, ought" (and
maybe more?) cannot take auxiliary verbs.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> But you can. You can use "to be used to" in the present.
> "I'm used to it now. Long ago, it used to surprise me, but now I'm
> accustomed to it, I'm used to it."
> "I used to (PAST) hate that teacher, but now I'm used (PRESENT) to
> her."
> The pronunciation of the two yoosta's (used to) is slightly different.
> Stress the one that means the present, a little, while with the other
> one you stress the verb that accompanies it.
> "I used to HATE that teacher but now I'm USED to her."
No, it's not a matter of there being "two yoosta's" with slightly
different pronunciations. In one case you have "I am used to" followed
by a noun phrase, in the other "I used to" (note the absence of "am")
followed by a verb phrase.
Just to complicate things further, you *can* have "I am used to" followed
by a verb phrase. It's rather odd in the first person, but completely
normal in the third:
"That spanner is used to tighten the nuts on this machine".
In that case the "used" does seem to be prounounced differently -
unlike the previous cases the 's' is voiced (i.e. pronounced as a 'z').
This sense of "use" does indicate treatment as a tool, so usage in the
first person would indicate that someone is being forced to do a job:
"I am used to do my boss's dirty work".
Or just
"I am used"
to indicate a general feeling of being treated as an inanimate object.
Matthew Huntbach
mike_l...@my-deja.com
I'm sorry to have offended you. I had noticed your typo, of course,
and, also of course, couldn't tell whether it was one or not. But that
isn't why I made my innocent suggestion.
I suggested the book because you yourself _said_ you were having
difficulty with "used to", and made the reasonable extrapolation that
you would like some help with other things too. As I may have said, aue
isn't the most reliable source of help: this is because we enjoy
contradicting one another, and often make no allowances for the needs
of foreign learners. There are also those among us whose English isn't
as good as they think it is: this doesn't matter until they start
giving advice.
Sure, I've had difficulty learning languages, which is why I'm sad that
you think I was being deliberately obnoxious about your own
achievements.
It may be relevant to mention that for some years I was in charge of a
rather successful college department of English for foreign students:
this may have conditioned me to offer confident advice where it isn't
welcome!
Sincere best wishes,
Bob Cunningham
said:
>In article <agmb6tcq1t157bbft...@4ax.com>, Bob Cunningham
><spa...@alt-usage-english.org> writes
>>I think I have said that I would welcome it's rejuvenation, and I've
>>said that even now I would readily accept and understand a statement
>>like:
>> After I retire, I will use to visit the park more often.
>A note to non-native speakers: this is weird, and you will never hear it
>spoken this way in England by a native :-)) Say instead:
I agree that it's not in current use, but I think it's far from weird.
It's merely a future-tense usage of a verb that was once used in
tenses other than the past, but no longer is.
> After I retire, I will get used to (or will become accustomed to)
> visiting the park more often.
As I've mentioned before, proposed alternatives to "I will use to
visit" are generally less economical of syllables than it is.
Eight syllables: "I will get used to visiting".
Eleven syllables: "I will become accustomed to visiting".
Six syllables: "I will use to visit".
The greater economy and elegance of the dormant usage are what make it
appealing to me. If, as I believe, language tends to drift toward
easier ways of saying things, it seems possible that the old uses of
"use to" in tenses other than the past will someday become prevalent
again. It would be interesting to know why the more economical usage
fell out of favor despite the normal tendency toward ease of
expression.
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to list here again some quotations that
illustrate those old uses (from _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of
English Usage_):
I did this night give the waterman who uses to carry
me 10s. -- Samuel Pepys, diary, 24 March 1667
The English then useing to let grow on their upper lip
large Mustachio's -- John Milton, _The History of
Britain, 1670 (OED)
He does not use to be the last on these occasions
-- George Lillo, _London Merchant_, 1731
mike_l...@my-deja.com
don't always make allowances for the needs of foreign learners.
For practical purposes, Michael Swan's articles 614 and 615 answer
Carsten's questions, but with the minimum number of examples.
Carsten's point about the lack of a present tense "I use to" (Swan 614)
in present-day English, even though there is a present "I am used to"
(Swan 615) has received accurate replies. But these replies may be hard
to extract from our discussion.
Dare I sum up?
If I'm answering the right question:
"I used to" and "I am used to" are two completely different expressions
which look similar.
The present and future tenses of "I used to" are not used any more,
because we use the simple present and future instead. (BUT if we need
to emphasise or explain, we can include something like "regularly"
or "every year".)
Best wishes,
mike_l...@my-deja.com
mike_l...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <948gr2$689$1...@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>,
> "Carmen L. Abruzzi" <n...@mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > #There is a class of verbs which cannot form this "am <verb>ing"
> > progressive form [...]
> > The clearest exposition of these differences that I have found
> > is in A. Sihler's _New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin_
> > (Hardcover - 686 pages (January 1995) Oxford Univ Press; ISBN:
> > 0195083458), at the beginning of the chapter on verbs, I believe.
> > He is discussing the probable semantics of verbal forms in
> > Indo-European, but uses English forms as examples of the
> > different nuances.
> >
> > >
> > >Maybe this question sounds silly for a native English speaker!
> > >But you know as a foreigner speaker, one can have small annoying
> > >problems
> > >that a native speaker don't even can see...
> > >
> >
I've cut this for readability, not changed my message.
Ben Bullock
Bob Cunningham <spa...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote in message
news:pl3h6tk5g8ml8ska4...@4ax.com...
> The greater economy and elegance of the dormant usage are what make it
> appealing to me.
In that case, Bob, you'll be wanting to revive the `dormant' usage of
negatives and questions without auxilliary verbs:
`Do you like biscuits?' -> `Like you biscuits?'
`He doesn't like biscuits.' -> `He likes not biscuits.'
That's much better, isn't it?
> If, as I believe, language tends to drift toward
> easier ways of saying things
You can believe that if you want to, but the English system of tenses, for
example, provides strong evidence that you are wrong.
> It would be interesting to know why the more economical usage
> fell out of favor despite the normal tendency toward ease of
> expression.
There is no such normal tendency, I'm afraid, Bob.
Ben Bullock
Carsten Junker Thomsen <callisto(remove_this)@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:pAc96.28$r4....@news.get2net.dk...
> I always mix up these...
>
> I used to
> I am used to
> I get use to
>
> Can you help me and explain... can you give some good examples?
Your confusion is a very common one, which is why so many books for English
learners written by experts go into such detail on the matter. If you ask on
a newsgroup the answers will not be so expert or so clearly written as the
answers you can get from a proper textbook, and the example sentences may be
wrong, unnatural or confusing. Why don't you try going first to a textbook
for learners of English before asking here, and if you really can't
understand the textbook, then you could ask a more specific question. If you
want some recommendations for books to use, try the `Essential Grammar in
Use', `English Grammar in Use', and `Advanced Grammar in Use' series by
Raymond Murphy, published by Cambridge University Press.
Bob Cunningham
<haya...@syd.odn.ne.jp> said:
>Bob Cunningham <spa...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote in message
>news:pl3h6tk5g8ml8ska4...@4ax.com...
>> The greater economy and elegance of the dormant usage are what make it
>> appealing to me.
>In that case, Bob, you'll be wanting to revive the `dormant' usage of
>negatives and questions without auxilliary verbs:
>`Do you like biscuits?' -> `Like you biscuits?'
>`He doesn't like biscuits.' -> `He likes not biscuits.'
>That's much better, isn't it?
They have a lot going for them.
Incidentally, they bring to mind the UK aversion to saying -- instead
of "Used you to?" -- "Didn't you use to?", which is okay in the US.
>> If, as I believe, language tends to drift toward
>> easier ways of saying things
>You can believe that if you want to, but the English system of tenses, for
>example, provides strong evidence that you are wrong.
I disagree. It can be argued -- in fact has been argued -- that
English has very few tenses, and that what is cumbersomely
accomplished in inflected languages by elaborate conjugations is done
neatly in English by the use of analytical formations. (If I remember
correctly, I believe that Neil Coffey, for one, has posted in AUE to
hold that English has few real tenses. I would find it interesting to
read what Professor Lawler might have to say on the subject.)
Analytical languages like English and Chinese depend upon word order
to distinguish meaning. An inflected language like Russian burdens
the user with a plethora of variations which in many cases are mere
conventions and are completely unnecessary to distinguish meaning. A
good illustration of this is the instrumental case in Russian, which
denotes that something is done "with" the thing denoted by the noun.
The Russians accompany the noun in the instrumental case with the
preposition "c", which means "with", so they are required to express
the "withness" twice. (Furthermore, although inflections are supposed
to allow greater freedom of word order, during the years I spent
studying Russian I saw few signs that word order in Russian was much
freer than in English.) I could give other examples from Russian
where prepositions and inflections duplicate meaning.
I have no doubt that Old English, an inflected language, was like
Russian in this respect. I'm thankful that English has evolved from
that horrible beginning to the greater simplicity and ease of an
analytical language.
The tendency of languages to evolve toward greater ease of expression
can be seen in the Romance languages, all of which -- if I understand
correctly -- have discarded much of the excess baggage of Latin
paradigms.
Now I know that it's natural to ask at this point "If languages always
evolve toward greater ease of expression, how did Russian, Latin,
Greek, and Sanskrit get to be such complicated messes in the first
place?" I suspect the answer to that is that sometime in the
unknowable past the complexities of Indo-European were *contrived* by
grammarians who had enough clout to impose them upon the populace --
or more likely, convince a powerful ruler to adopt them, after which
the populace would naturally follow. Ever since then speakers have
been discarding unnecessary complexity and awkward pronunciations, and
this is a continuing process.
>> It would be interesting to know why the more economical usage
>> fell out of favor despite the normal tendency toward ease of
>> expression.
>There is no such normal tendency, I'm afraid, Bob.
I now know for a fact that that is your opinion. Thank you for
sharing it with us.
P&D Schultz
>
> Bob Cunningham <spa...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote
> > If, as I believe, language tends to drift toward
> > easier ways of saying things
>
> You can believe that if you want to, but the English system of tenses, for
> example, provides strong evidence that you are wrong.
The English system of tenses is extremely easy for me; I can't imagine
anything that would make them easier. For me.
If you meant easier for a foreign adult to learn, you might be right but
that fact would have no bearing on the evolution of the language one way
or another in any case, so it doesn't matter.
I am slightly amused that English speakers seem to assume that analytic
languages are essentially "easier" or "simpler" than highly inflected
ones. Maybe because that's what you're used to? Don't you think our
rigid word order, phrasal verbs, etc., drive foreigners nuts?
I'll bet Russian, with all its cases and genders and verbal aspect, is
not one smidgen harder for a native speaker to handle than English is
for us.
\\P. Schultz
Bob Cunningham
<spa...@alt-usage-english.org> said:
[...]
>Incidentally, they bring to mind the UK aversion to saying -- instead
>of "Used you to?" -- "Didn't you use to?", which is okay in the US.
I suppose it's obvious that I should have said either
... instead of "Used you to?" -- "Did you use to?"
or
... instead of "Usedn't you to?" -- "Didn't you use to?"
All four of these are acceptable to some extent in British usage,
according to Burchfield in _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_.
Strange to see, though, he calls the positive "You usedn't to be like
that" (Agatha Christie 1964) somewhat formal, but says that the
negative-interrogative "Usedn't people to ... " is "found in speech
and informal letters", while "arguments rage as to whether it is
'better' than the type _Didn't people use(d) to ... ?_".
(It sorta makes my skin crawl to think that anyone would find "didn't
used to" acceptable. To me it's like saying "didn't wanted to".)
Would some British speaker who uses the phrase "Usedn't people
to ... " please tell me how it's pronounced. That is, is it
|'ju:zd@nt|, |'ju:st@nt|, |'ju:z@nt| |'ju:s@nt| ("YOOZ duhnt", "YOOS
tuhnt", "YOOZ uhnt", "YOOS uhnt"), or something else?
Bob Cunningham
said:
>I am slightly amused that English speakers seem to assume that analytic
>languages are essentially "easier" or "simpler" than highly inflected
>ones.
At one time, Zamenhoff -- the inventor of Esperanto -- was a speaker
of a few European languages, including Polish and Russian, but not
English. When he learned English, he was delighted to find that all
of the inflections that other languages had were unnecessary, that
excellent communication was possible without them.
A native Czech speaker, a fellow student in a Russian class and a
fluent English speaker, told me that of all the languages he had
learned, English was by far the easiest. I asked him, "How about the
crazy spelling?" His reply: "Americans can't spell, either." (I
know I've mentioned this in AUE before, but it was a long time ago.)
mike_l...@my-deja.com
I'd say "YOOSSuhnt".
I just can't work out which phrase I actually say: self-interrogation
has run into the quicksands of constant repetition.
Matti Lamprhey
> [...]
> Would some British speaker who uses the phrase "Usedn't people
> to ... " please tell me how it's pronounced. That is, is it
> |'ju:zd@nt|, |'ju:st@nt|, |'ju:z@nt| |'ju:s@nt| ("YOOZ duhnt", "YOOS
> tuhnt", "YOOZ uhnt", "YOOS uhnt"), or something else?
I don't use it myself but I've heard it from others, who usually adopt the
last of your variants.
(I'd say "Didn't people use to ...", pronounced YOOS.)
Matti
Matthew M. Huntbach
> I disagree. It can be argued -- in fact has been argued -- that
> English has very few tenses, and that what is cumbersomely
> accomplished in inflected languages by elaborate conjugations is done
> neatly in English by the use of analytical formations.
On the contrary, this discussion has revealed that you don't need
inflections to get incredible complexity over tenses. Indeed, the
distinction between forming tenses by a fairly arbitary conglomeration
of words that mean nothing on their own, and a fairly arbitary
conglomeration of syllables stuck onto the end of a word is artificial.
Is the fact that in English we can form a sort of tense by the prefix
"yoosta-" (which we write as " used to ") really much different from the
fact that in some other language something similar might be indicated
by a suffix?
The inflections in other languages started off as separate words just
like in English that got slurred together. If English were a newly
discovered language without a written history, the way we would decide to
write it might already partially slur the tense words into one.
Matthew Huntbach
Wilson Angerson
><spa...@alt-usage-english.org> said:
>
>[...]
>
>>Incidentally, they bring to mind the UK aversion to saying -- instead
>>of "Used you to?" -- "Didn't you use to?", which is okay in the US.
>
>I suppose it's obvious that I should have said either
>
> ... instead of "Used you to?" -- "Did you use to?"
>
>or
>
> ... instead of "Usedn't you to?" -- "Didn't you use to?"
>
>All four of these are acceptable to some extent in British usage,
>according to Burchfield in _The New Fowler's Modern English Usage_.
In my experience, "Used you to...?" and "Usedn't you to...?" are rare, and to
me they have a slightly old-fashioned flavour. Not quite as old-fashioned as
"Like you biscuits?", but heading along that way. "Did/Didn't you use to...?"
seems to be the normal form these days.
Wilson Angerson
Bob Cunningham
said:
[...]
>On the contrary, this discussion has revealed that you don't need
>inflections to get incredible complexity over tenses. Indeed, the
>distinction between forming tenses by a fairly arbitary conglomeration
>of words that mean nothing on their own, and a fairly arbitary
>conglomeration of syllables stuck onto the end of a word is artificial.
>Is the fact that in English we can form a sort of tense by the prefix
>"yoosta-" (which we write as " used to ") really much different from the
>fact that in some other language something similar might be indicated
>by a suffix?
>The inflections in other languages started off as separate words just
>like in English that got slurred together. If English were a newly
>discovered language without a written history, the way we would decide to
>write it might already partially slur the tense words into one.
"Will go" has little chance of fusion so long as we can correctly form
phrases like "will almost certainly go". "Will have been" will almost
certainly retain its analytical structure as long as we can readily
say things like "will probably have almost been".
Can anyone think of an English tense pattern than can't have words
interposed between its elements?
How confident are you that the elements of English tenses mean nothing
on their own? If I say "John will" and pause, a listener will sense
that I'm about to say something about a future happening. If I then
expand it to "John will have" -- with appropriate intonation -- and
pause, the listener will think that I am about to mention something
that will be in the past with respect to some future time. It seems
to me that tense elements like "will" and "have" contribute semantic
increments and hence have individual meaning.
I've probably never said "I will have been about to be going to be
doing it," and I probably will never have occasion to say anything
like it, but I could meaningfully say it, and I would do so by
constructing it cumulatively piece by piece from the meanings of its
elements, not by recalling a prescribed tense pattern and fitting
pieces into its slots.
Can someone tell me how to say "He will inevitably have almost been
about to be going to reluctantly be slowly doing it" in Spanish?
- - - - -
Note about split "infinitives": When faced with a situation where
something can be said with or without splitting an "infinitive", I
usually choose to carefully split it in order to once again show my
contempt for the "rule" against it.
- - - - -
Note about putting "infinitive" in quotes: The reason I do it is that
I don't accept the commonly held position that a formation like "to
be" is an infinitive. I prefer to believe those grammarians who tell
me that in "to be", "be" is the infinitive, while "to" is a particle
that is often associated with an infinitive.
- - - - -
Spelling note: When someone writes "arbitary" for "arbitrary" once, I
assume it's a typo. When someone does it twice, I begin to suspect
that he or she doesn't know how to spell or pronounce "arbitrary". In
any case, I know the writer is one who chooses to not use a spelling
checker, thus ignoring that what he or she writes only once may
assault the sensibilities of hundreds or thousands of readers.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> On 25 Jan 2001 10:47:25 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach)
> said:
> >The inflections in other languages started off as separate words just
> >like in English that got slurred together. If English were a newly
> >discovered language without a written history, the way we would decide to
> >write it might already partially slur the tense words into one.
> "Will go" has little chance of fusion so long as we can correctly form
> phrases like "will almost certainly go". "Will have been" will almost
> certainly retain its analytical structure as long as we can readily
> say things like "will probably have almost been".
"Will go" is, however, increasingly being replaced as a future tense by
"going to go" pronounced (and sometimes written) "gonna go". So we can
say "I'm almost certainly gonnago" to give the complete fusion. We also
have "gottago" written "got to go". If English were a newly discovered
language, it would be a curious grammatical rule that it's
"I'm gonnago" but "I've gottago". Not to mention "I shuddagon".
Matthew Huntbach
Jane MacDonald
malgran...@bigfoot.com (Bob Cunningham) wrote:
<snip>
>
> Note about split "infinitives": When faced with a situation where
> something can be said with or without splitting an "infinitive", I
> usually choose to carefully split it in order to once again show my
> contempt for the "rule" against it.
<snip>
> Spelling note: When someone writes "arbitary" for "arbitrary" once, I
> assume it's a typo. When someone does it twice, I begin to suspect
> that he or she doesn't know how to spell or pronounce "arbitrary". In
> any case, I know the writer is one who chooses to not use a spelling
> checker, thus ignoring that what he or she writes only once may
> assault the sensibilities of hundreds or thousands of readers.
May I suggest a certain inconsistency here?
Like you, I consider the "don't split infinitives" rule to be
arbitrary (note spelling), but I follow a different practice.
Because vast numbers of educated people, the kind most likely
to read my stories, have heard this rule and think it should be
followed, when I have the choice you offer I do not split the
infinitive. I only write it once, but if I split the infinitive for no
particular reason, my thousands of readers (I wish) may be
offended. I see good reason to avoid offending them for no
cause--I want them to be lost in the story, not thinking about
grammar.
Like you, I use my spell checker to avoid misspelling
"arbitrary" or anything else. I do not want to offend my readers.
The same logic applies in both cases. Offending readers without
good cause is a serious error. I try not to allow my feelings about
stupid rules to affect my writing for fear of breaking my "don't offend
readers unnecessarily" rule. Even if the whole world knew of
my contempt for a rule, would I be any better off? Would anyone care?
Jane MacDonald
jane...@excite.com
Bob Cunningham
said:
"I've said before that I'm gonnago, but if you do it again, I'm gonna
really go."
>Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> On 25 Jan 2001 18:00:06 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach) > said:
> >Bob Cunningham (spa...@alt-usage-english.org) wrote:
> >> "Will go" has little chance of fusion so long as we can correctly form
> >> phrases like "will almost certainly go".
> >"Will go" is, however, increasingly being replaced as a future tense by
> >"going to go" pronounced (and sometimes written) "gonna go". So we can
> >say "I'm almost certainly gonnago" to give the complete fusion. We also
> >have "gottago" written "got to go". If English were a newly discovered
> >language, it would be a curious grammatical rule that it's
> >"I'm gonnago" but "I've gottago". Not to mention "I shuddagon".
> "I've said before that I'm gonnago, but if you do it again, I'm gonna
> really go."
No, sorry, that doesn't sound right to me. It should always be
"I'm really gonnago" to me. I guess in our hypothetical "English
as a newly written language" mode, I should have written these as
"ime gonnago" and "ive gottago".
Matthew Huntbach
Donna Richoux
I think I see your basic point, but the way I see it, Bob's remarks
illustrate that there is a time to follow rules and a time to break
them. He knows that if he splits an infinitive, some of his readers may
be distracted (I can't bring myself to say "offended," to me that is a
serious word relating to substantial insults) and they may think less of
him, but he's decided to live with that risk because of his strong
feelings that there is no such proper rule. On the other hand, he
believes in good spelling, and he judges other people by their spelling.
That's his prerogative.
I would only take exception to this general assumption that an automated
spellchecker is an absolute must. Some of us don't use them. However,
for those who do, I don't mind, go right ahead.
I'm not sure from what you said if you're trying to become a
world-famous writer, Jane, but I think if you were *too* concerned all
the time about what people think and *never* cut loose and said "Well,
hell, I'm doing it this way because I think it best," then I doubt you'd
get there. But you probably know that.
--
Best wishes --- Donna Richoux
Jane MacDonald
Hi, Donna--
Thanks for the best wishes!
I agree with almost everything you say, yet I still think Bob is
inconsistent, in that he says misspelling words "may assault the
sensibilities of hundreds or thousands of readers," and
obviously considers that a bad thing, but also says he purposely
breaks the infinitive rule, which may have exactly the
same result.
Had he said multiple misspellings would assault *his* senses, I
wouldn't have said a thing, except maybe "me, too."
I break rules in my writing when it serves a literary purpose,
and spend many minutes arguing with my favorite
proofreader-editor about that, but I'd never break one just
because I think it's silly--more than one of them strikes me as
silly. If my readers are going to be disturbed by my writing, I
want them to be disturbed by the story, not by grammar they
find unsatisfactory.
Incidentally, I'm all for spellcheckers; I do a lot of editing, and
they save me lots of the same kind of pain Bob gets. They don't
solve the problem, but they do help. You know something odd?
I just discovered that the MS Works spellchecker calls itself a
"Spelling Checker." How quaint!
I guess I'm not quite "great" yet, since the first story I've ever
gotten paid for is coming out on Feb. 1. "Great" may take a few
more weeks. :-)
Jane
Alec "Skitt" P.
"Jane MacDonald" <jane...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:94stec$ig3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I just discovered that the MS Works spellchecker calls itself a
> "Spelling Checker." How quaint!
Yeah, they finally looked in a dictionary (MWCD10, for instance).
"Spellchecker", indeed! Cast any good spells lately?