Author Topic: The disputable validity of some “used to + verb” usage  (Read 4317 times)

Joe Carillo

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4656
  • Karma: +206/-2
    • View Profile
    • Email
The disputable validity of some “used to + verb” usage
« on: June 07, 2023, 08:34:30 PM »
Most of us feel comfortable with the form “used to + verb” when used to mean a past condition or habitual practice, as in “They used to be very close friends” and “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 sentence, “used to” conveys the idea of an old habit that had already stopped. In both cases, 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 +verb” in negative and interrogative statements, both of which require the form to take the auxiliary verb “did,” raises serious questions about its grammatical validity. Indeed, how should the two “used to +verb” 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 + verb” 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?

Both the American English and the British 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. Their strongly recommended usage for negative “used to” statements is therefore this: “They didn’t use to be very close friends.” And for questions, it’s this: “Did they use to be very close friends?

This appears to be odd and puzzling, however, for it actually contravenes the supposedly past-tense character of the “used to +verb” form. But the good thing going for it is that it adheres to the standard English 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.”).

But some grammarians frown on this prescription. They argue that since “used to + verb” 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 likewise unacceptable.

For negative “used to” constructions, these grammarians recommend this form instead: “They used not to be very close friends.” For interrogative “used to” constructions, they suggest these two forms: “Used she not to jog early in the morning?” or “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 prescribed counterparts in American English and British English .

Since American English is the Philippine standard, however, we need to follow its prescriptions for the “used to + verb” form—but without necessarily turning a totally blind eye to the evident virtues of the contrary usage prescriptions when the form is used in negative and interrogative statements.

Read this column and listen to its voice recording in The Manila Times:
The disputable validity of some “used to + verb” usage

(Next: “Irregardless” and other grammar bugaboos)           June 8, 2023

Visit Jose Carillo’s English Forum, http://josecarilloforum.com. You can follow me on Facebook and Twitter and e-mail me at j8carillo@yahoo.com.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2023, 06:53:40 AM by Joe Carillo »