Most of us feel comfortable with the form “used to + verb” when using it to mean a past condition or habitual practice, as in these two sentences: “They used to be very close friends.” “She used to jog early in the morning.” In the first sentence, of course, “used to” conveys the idea of an activity or condition in the past that’s no longer true; in the second, on the other hand, “used to” conveys the idea of an old habit that had already stopped. In both cases, however, we’re hardly in any danger of tripping in our grammar because “used to” is clearly functioning as it should—as an auxiliary verb affirming the sense of a past action or state of affairs that had already ceased.
But using “used to” in negative and interrogative statements, which both require the form to take the auxiliary verb “did,” raises serious questions about its grammatical validity. Indeed, how should the two “used to” sentences above be rendered in their negative form? For the first, do we say, “They didn’t used to be very close friends” (“used” with the “d”) or “They didn’t use to be very close friends” (“use” without the “d”)? And for the second, do we say, “She didn’t used to jog early in the morning” or “She didn’t use to jog early in the morning”?
Then again, how do we put the two “used to” sentences in question form? For the first, do we say, “Did they used to be very close friends?” or “Did they use to be very close friends?” And for the second, do we say, “Did she used to jog early in the morning?” or “Did she use to jog early in the morning?”
The American English prescription is straightforward: take out the “d” from the verb in “used to” every time this form works with the auxiliary verb “did” in negative and interrogative statements. The correct usage for negative “used to” statements is therefore this: “They didn’t use to be very close friends.” For questions, it’s this: “Did they use to be very close friends?” This is an odd and puzzling prescription, for it actually contravenes the supposedly past-tense character of “used to,” but a good thing going for it is that it’s consistent with the standard grammar rule that auxiliary verbs, not main verbs, should take the tense (“They didn’t wish to be identified” rather than “They didn’t wished to be identified,” and “Did they want to live in Manila?” rather than “Did they wanted to live in Manila.”).
Some grammarians, however, frown on the American English prescription. They argue that since “used to” exists only in the past tense, its negative and interrogative forms can’t possibly take the auxiliary verb “do.” To them, therefore, both the negative constructions “They didn’t used to be very close friends” and “They didn’t use to be very close friends” are unacceptable, and both the interrogative constructions “Did she used to jog early in the morning?” and “Did she use to jog early in the morning?” are unacceptable as well.
For negative “used to” constructions, these grammarians prescribe this form instead: “They used not to be very close friends.” For interrogative “used to” constructions, they recommend these two forms: “Used she not to jog early in the morning?” “Was she not used to jogging early in the morning?” Take note that all these alternative constructions take pains to retain the “d” in “used to” and avoid using the contraction “didn’t,” yielding sentences that don’t have the odd look and sound of their American English counterparts.
Of course, American English is the Philippine standard, so we have to follow its prescription for “used to”—but we need not turn a blind eye to the virtues of the contrary prescription.
We will now proceed to three much more lethal grammar trippers than the form “used to,” namely “the reason… is because,” “the reason why…is because,” and “the reason…is due to.” See what awful and unsightly sentences they make: “The reason she’s absent is because she’s sick.” “The reason why he went out is because he was hungry.” “The reason for the poor attendance is due to the strong rain.”
The three forms give rise to flagrant redundancies, or needless repetitions of the same idea, so we need to methodically root them out: “The reason she’s absent is that she’s sick.” (Even better: “She’s absent because she’s sick.”) “The reason he went out is that he was hungry.” (Even better: “He went out because he was hungry.”) “The reason for the poor attendance is the strong rain.” (Even better: “The poor attendance is due to the strong rain.”) (September 19, 2005)
From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, September 19, 2005 © 2005 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.
----
What do you think of my ideas in these essays? Click the Reply button to post your thoughts on Jose Carillo’s English Forum.
