Is "used to" really needed here?

[Nightmare85]

Hey guys,
Yesterday I was talking to a friend regarding the English language.
He had to pass an English seminar for his army job.
Then he gave me this example:
When I was young I often played football.
When I was young I often used to play football.

He said the correct answer was sentence #2, because you are not playing football anymore.
However, you are not young anymore either.
I thought maybe the part "When I was young" would make it clear that this period is over, so it wouldn't be necessary to add the "used to".

By the way, he gave me the hint that often was an important word in that sentence as well.

What do you think?

Cheers!

 

[apex2000]

'Often' is important as it reveals that he was not a once only player, or that there was just one period when he played.'Used to' is not necessary but is quite normal.

 

[5jj]

When I was young I often played football.
When I was young I often used to play football.

If the test question simply asked which of these two was correct, then it was a bad question. As appex suggested, both are correct, though there is a difference in emphasis.

 

[engee30]

[...] He said the correct answer was sentence #2, because you are not playing football anymore. [...]

♥♦♣♠ NOT A TEACHER ♥♦♣♠

That's why the answer considered as correct was #2; sentence #1 doesn't say explicitly whether or not you still often play football.

 

[5jj]

♥♦♣♠ NOT A TEACHER ♥♦♣♠

That's why the answer considered as correct was #2; sentence #1 doesn't say explicitly whether or not you still often play football.

Unless he was specifically told to express the idea that he no longer played, then the past simple is also correct.

If that were not the case, then the use of the past simple would rarely be correct.

 

[engee30]

In any army, you are supposed to express your ideas clearly, without leaving your interlocutors in ambiguity. I reckon the test was especially designed for such purposes, to test one's ability to put their ideas into words of explicitness.

 

[5jj]

In any army, you are supposed to express your ideas clearly, without leaving your interlocutors in ambiguity. I reckon the test was especially designed for such purposes, to test one's ability to put their ideas into words of explicitness.

Then I hope that the question itself was at least phrased fairly.

As I wrote before: "If the test question simply asked which of these two was correct, then it was a bad question."

As nightmare wrote: "I thought maybe the part "When I was young" would make it clear that this period is over, so it wouldn't be necessary to add the "used to"."

There is no question of there being any ambiguity about When I was young I often played football.

 

[apex2000]

In any army, you are supposed to express your ideas clearly, without leaving your interlocutors in ambiguity. I reckon the test was especially designed for such purposes, to test one's ability to put their ideas into words of explicitness.

It does not matter whether this is for army use or otherwise; the responses given by fivejedjon are correct. We who use English all use the same language.

 

[engee30]

It does not matter whether this is for army use or otherwise; the responses given by fivejedjon are correct. We who use English all use the same language.

It appears again that I've been misunderstood through my posts by some. Not once in this thread did I claim that fivejedjon was wrong in his opinions. I merely wanted to say that if I had been asked to express something that was the case in the past but no longer exists, in an explicit manner, which might have been the case in that army test, I would definitely have used the form used to. That's the core point I've been trying to make all along. It's obvious to me that the two forms are correct when it comes to talking about someone's activities happening on a regular basis in the past.
:roll:

 

[5jj]

It appears again that I've been misunderstood through my posts by some. Not once in this thread did I claim that fivejedjon was wrong in his opinions,

Fair point, but the last few posts were in response to your:

That's why the answer considered as correct was #2; sentence #1 doesn't say explicitly whether or not you still often play football.

and:

In any army, you are supposed to express your ideas clearly, without leaving your interlocutors in ambiguity. I reckon the test was especially designed for such purposes, to test one's ability to put their ideas into words of explicitness.

The implication was that you thought #2 was correct(and #1 incorrect) and that it was correct because the test was designed to test the clear expression of ideas.

I merely wanted to say that if I had been asked to express something that was the case in the past but no longer exists, in an explicit manner, which might have been the case in that army test, I would definitely have used the form used to. That's the core point I've been trying to make all along.

Once again, fair point, but you never actually wrote that.

It's obvious to me that the two forms are correct when it comes to talking about someone's activities happening on a regular basis in the past.

Once again, you never actually wrote that.

I sometimes feel that I may be being a little petty when I question what you write, engee, but I am very aware that this is the 'Ask a Teacher' forum. Many people who read it believe that the answers posted can be taken as the words of an expert. You sometimes write things that can appear to be authoritative pronouncements or, as in this case, appear to cast doubts on something that has been written previously and that is, in fact, correct.

I accept that you did not write certain things, and I also accept that you did not mean to imply them, but we have to consider the impression the reader may receive. Had you been as clear and explicit in your first post as you were in your last, this thread would have been a little shorter.

 

[engee30]

I sometimes feel that I may be being a little petty [...]

That's typical of every teacher all over the world, I dare say. ;-)

I'll try to be more explicit in my opinions next time.

 

[apex2000]

It appears again that I've been misunderstood through my posts by some. Not once in this thread did I claim that fivejedjon was wrong in his opinions. I merely wanted to say that if I had been asked to express something that was the case in the past but no longer exists, in an explicit manner, which might have been the case in that army test, I would definitely have used the form used to. That's the core point I've been trying to make all along. It's obvious to me that the two forms are correct when it comes to talking about someone's activities happening on a regular basis in the past.
:roll:

To follow up to your further explanation then, regardless
of army usage or not then 'used to' is not required.
It adds nothing more explicit than the sentence without it.

 

[engee30]

To follow up to your further explanation then, regardless
of army usage or not then 'used to' is not required.
It adds nothing more explicit than the sentence without it.

So if you were told something like:
When I was young, I used to play football.
would you still think that the person speaking still plays football?

 

[apex2000]

So if you were told something like:
When I was young, I used to play football.
would you still think that the person speaking still plays football?

No.
When I was young -
I played football.
I used to play football.
From both of these we understand that his playing days were when he was young, and no more.

 

[engee30]

So if you were told something like:
When I was young, I used to play football.
would you still think that the person speaking still plays football?

No.

That negative answer to my question is exactly what I've been expecting to get from you, apex2000. Thanks for that. :up:
To me, everything concerning the topic is clear now.