[Grammar] Where did you use to go when you were a kid?

[beachboy]

1 - Where did you use to go when you were a kid?
2 - What did you use to eat when you were young?
3 - Did you use to like Mathematics?

Are questions using "used to" common? Do the 3 questions above, if they make sense, clearly mean that the person who is asking is only interested in knowing about the past habits that no longer exist?

 

[Raymott]

"...though you'll occasionally see 'did you use to' written as 'did you used to'."

And "Did you used to?" is grammatically wrong, of course.

 

[PaulMatthews]

They are fine and quite common.

A point about the aspectual verb "use": the correct form in negatives and interrogatives is "use", as in your examples. But elsewhere "used", as in Ed used to smoke is the correct form.

 

[beachboy]

I opened the thread because I can't come up with a context in which somebody would ask somebody else a question showing interest in the habits that they had solely in the past, and not something that they might have done on a regular basis not only in the past but still do in the present. If, out of nothing, somebody asked me: "Beachboy, what cartoons did you use to watch as a kid?", I would promptly say "Speed Racer, Pink Panther and Mr. Magoo", but then I would realize that I still watch Speed Racer... Or "Beachboy, where did you use to like to go?". I would say "Ipanema Beach and Paulo Afonso". But I still like to go to Ipanema beach...

 

[Phaedrus]

"...though you'll occasionally see 'did you use to' written as 'did you used to'."

And "Did you used to?" is grammatically wrong, of course.

I would always write "Did you used to?," with the "d." It is arguably the more correct form. The usage giant Bryan Garner argues for the correctness of it.

Interestingly (this is not one of Garner's points but my own), a sentence like "What did you use to eat when you were young?" is ambiguous without the "d."

It could be answered, e.g., with "Chopsticks": "I used chopsticks to eat when I was young. Then I moved to the U.S. and began to use silverware to eat."

When "d" is used, however, the sentence unambiguously means what it is intended to mean: "What did you used to eat when you were young?"

"Rice and fish."

 

[abaka]

It's probably best to avoid the negative or interrogative "used to" construction in writing. "Did you use to do something" is correct, but in writing looks awkward.

Say, rather:

Did you ever go there when you were a kid?
What did you usually eat when you were young?
Did you ever like Mathematics?

In speech, people tend to say "did you used to". I think I usually hear the consonant geminated. It's because such a phrase is, strictly speaking, wrong -- and looks wrong when written -- that I strongly suggest rephrasing.

 

[Phaedrus]

I do not agree that Did you used to is the more correct form, but I do think the time has come to accept it. It appears to be so common that I see little point in insisting that it is incorrect.

Did you use to would make sense if use were the verb, but I would argue that the verb is used. Consider that we don't (at least any longer) use it in the present tense: "I use to smoke" is interpreted as referring to the past, and we add the "d": "I used to smoke." Nor do we use this verb in the future or in the progressive. We can't say: "[strike]He will use to smoke[/strike]"; "[strike]He is using to smoke[/strike]." The verb appears, then, to be used, and if it is, it should retain its "d" with do-support, used being the base form.

Another point worth considering is that "used to" has status as a quasi-auxiliary verb. In years past, it was possible and normal to use it in subject-auxiliary inversion ("Used you to smoke?"; "What used you to smoke?") and with not-contraction ("Usedn't he to smoke?"; "He used to smoke, usedn't he (to)?") Notice that the spelling under circumstances of not-contraction (even though historical variants exist) used the "d." Again, the verb appears to be "used." It is not for us to divest the verb of its d.

 

[PaulMatthews]

Did you use to would make sense if use were the verb, but I would argue that the verb is used..

The verb is "use", not "used", and "I used to smoke" / "I didn’t use to smoke" / "Did you use to smoke?” are strictly speaking the correct forms. It has no present tense, only past tense and plain forms, the latter occurring only with do support.

"Use" can be either a lexical verb (do support required), or an auxiliary verb, though for me it does not have auxiliary behaviour at all, so it can't be a modal auxiliary; it all depends on whether you can say "Used you to live near there?" and "It usedn't to be allowed".

Incidentally, the verb is just "use" not "use to". The "to" belongs with the infinitival clause complement: "I used [to smoke]".

 

[Phaedrus]

The verb is "use", not "used", and "I used to smoke" / "I didn’t use to smoke" / "Did you use to smoke?” are strictly speaking the correct forms.

Fortunately, the spelling controversy needn't arise with sentences like "I didn't use(d) to smoke," since they're better with "never": "I never used to smoke." Historically, the verb was indeed "use," but that verb is archaic except in the form used with an infinitival complement.

Not using the "d" with do-support here amounts to treating the archaic base verb as if it were not archaic.

"Use" can be either a lexical verb (do support required), or an auxiliary verb, though for me it does not have auxiliary behaviour at all, so it can't be a modal auxiliary; it all depends on whether you can say "Used you to live near there?" and "It usedn't to be allowed".

In generative grammar, modal auxiliaries occupy the tense node (T) in the sentence (TP). I think there is reason to believe that "used" is either base-generated at T or moves there. Consider that we do not need a past-time adverbial with "used to". "I used to smoke" is fine, but "I smoked" is weird (un-anchored), outside of context.

Incidentally, the verb is just "use" not "use to". The "to" belongs with the infinitival clause complement: "I used [to smoke]"

Analyzed as a quasi-modal auxiliary, "used to" needs its infinitival complement. I've been arguing that the verb is "used" in contemporary English. In Shakespeare's time, "use" was not archaic. I believe there is even a line in Romeo and Juliet with "I do use to . . ." Nowadays, "I (do) use to smoke" is ill-formed and doesn't mean "I (do) smoke."

 

[PaulMatthews]

Fortunately, the spelling controversy needn't arise with sentences like "I didn't use(d) to smoke," since they're better with "never": "I never used to smoke." Historically, the verb was indeed "use," but that verb is archaic except in the form used with an infinitival complement

The choice between the negative variants is indeed sometimes avoided in informal style by using "never". Today, the past form "used" is an auxiliary, contrasting with the lexical "use” found in "He didn’t use to smoke”.

Not using the "d" with do-support here amounts to treating the archaic base verb as if it were not archaic.

Historic change means that the absence of "d" effectively marks the verb as being the plain form, which is found only in construction with auxiliary "do".

Analyzed as a quasi-modal auxiliary, "used to" needs its infinitival complement. I've been arguing that the verb is "used" in contemporary English. In Shakespeare's time, "use" was not archaic. I believe there is even a line in Romeo and Juliet with "I do use to . . ." Nowadays, "I (do) use to smoke" is ill-formed and doesn't mean "I (do) smoke."

The verb is not "use to”, just "use". It requires an infinitival complement, of course, but the marker "to" is part of the complement, not the verb.

 

[Phaedrus]

Today, the past form "used" is an auxiliary, contrasting with the lexical "use” found in "He didn’t use to smoke”.

If "use" is the lexical verb related to "used to," doesn't it seem odd that it can only appear in base form under the condition of past-tense do-support?

Is there any other verb in the English language that cannot appear in its base form in the absence of do-support, let alone do-support in a particular tense?

Moreover, if auxiliary "used to" involves the lexical verb "use," isn't it odd that it can never appear with infinitival "to" before it? "[strike]To use to smoke is bad[/strike]."

 

[abaka]

In generative grammar, modal auxiliaries occupy the tense node (T) in the sentence (TP). I think there is reason to believe that "used" is either base-generated at T or moves there. Consider that we do not need a past-time adverbial with "used to". "I used to smoke" is fine, but "I smoked" is weird (un-anchored), outside of context.

"I used not to smoke" means that there was a time in the past you did not smoke at all.

"I did not use(d) to smoke" means that in the past you did not make a habit of smoking. It leaves open the possibility that you may have taken a draught or two (or a puff, I suppose, if you didn't inhale).

This dichotomy suggests that "used" is neither an auxiliary nor a modal verb.

 

[Phaedrus]

"I used not to smoke" means that there was a time in the past you did not smoke at all.

It means that there was a time period in the past during which it was the speaker's practice not to smoke. I see no distinction in meaning between "I used not to smoke" and "I didn't use(d) to smoke." With certain special examples, however, there may be a difference in meaning between the two constructions. Here's an author who found one:

"'I used not to see him at my uncle's' does not convey the idea that it was not your habit to meet him there. It rather means, that he was there, but that for some unexplained reason you did not see him. You meant to express, not something which it was your practice not to do, but something which it was not your practice to do. 'I never used' is better, but it may be too strong. I am afraid there is no refuge but in the inelegant word 'usedn't' to which I suppose most of us have many times been driven."

-- Alford, Henry. The Queen's English: A Manual of Idiom and Usage, section 306. Strahan and Co: London, 1864.

The grammatical possibility of "usedn't" would be hard to account for indeed if "used (to)" were not an auxiliary or a modal. Consider that we cannot convert "He tried not to do it" to "[strike]He triedn't to do it[/strike]"; nor can we convert "Did he try to do it?" to "[strike]Tried he to do it?[/strike]" But "He usedn't to do it" and "Used he to do it?" are both possible, even if it is more common to say "He never used to do it," "He didn't use(d) to do it," and "Did he use(d) to do it?"

"Used to" thus possesses at least two of the NICE properties (Huddleston) possessed by auxiliaries: Negation and (subject-auxiliary) Inversion. The fact that it cannot occur with infinitival "to" preceding it ("[strike]To use(d) to smoke is bad[/strike]") indicates that it is like other modals ("[strike]To can swim is good[/strike]") in that respect. Furthermore, the fact that it cannot be preceded by a modal supplies more evidence of its modal-likeness: "[strike]He will used to smoke after he quits[/strike]."

It's also interesting that "used to" doesn't work in the gerund construction, like other modals. For example, "[strike]Harvey's using to smoke means that he may occasionally crave a cigarette[/strike]" is ungrammatical and thus cannot be used to mean "The fact that Harvey used to smoke means that he may occasionally crave a cigarette." Nor can we use "[strike]Harvey's canning swim may save his life one day[/strike]" in place of "Harvey's being able to swim may save his life one day."

In conclusion, used to is extremely modal-like, and all modals are auxiliary verbs (though not all auxiliary verbs are modals).

 

[Glizdka]

Not a teacher
------
It's the first time I see "didn't used to". I haven't seen a single English textbook (here in Poland) that mentions it.
Would you advise to mention it when teaching the construction, or against mentioning it?

 

[Phaedrus]

It's the first time I see "didn't used to". I haven't seen a single English textbook (here in Poland) that mentions it.
Would you advise to mention it when teaching the construction, or against mentioning it?

I would advise teaching "never used to" and "didn't used to" as its proper variant (as to why, please refer to my last four posts) and then mentioning the entrenched, if baseless, assumption (exhibited in your textbooks and in this thread) that "didn't use to" is how to write it.

 

[jutfrank]

It's the first time I see "didn't used to". I haven't seen a single English textbook (here in Poland) that mentions it.
Would you advise to mention it when teaching the construction, or against mentioning it?

I'm surprised you've not seen didn't use to mentioned. I too would definitely recommend teaching it, (along with never used to) and the question form Did you use to.

 

[Phaedrus]

Well, we don't accept *didn't could/might/should/would, and some don't accept ?didn't ought. That seems to be one reasonably sound reason for rejecting didn't used.

I agree with you there. That is definitely a solid point for the opposing camp.

As I see things now, while the spellings didn't used to and Did you used to rightly acknowledge that used, not use, is the verb in play in modern English—even if this semi/quasi modal etymologically evolved out of a historical full/main/lexical verb use (separate, obviously, from the use in They use chopsticks to eat, He uses too much salt, etc.) which used to have a full range of tenses along with a parallel meaning—they are nevertheless grammatically anomalous for the reason you have given.

I attribute this anomaly to present-day English speakers' discomfort with using contraction (usedn't) and subject-auxiliary inversion (Used you to . . . ?, What/why/where used you to . . .?) with quasi/semi modal used to. To compensate for our discomfort, we add do-support in the (semantically redundant) past tense, and wind up with the syntactically messy situation of dummy did sitting alongside a modal on the same branch of the Chomskyan tree, I suppose via head-adjunction.

I'm glad you've brought up ?didn't ought, Piscean, which I wasn't aware existed. By saying that "some don't accept" it, you seem to be implying that many people, perhaps including you, do accept it. One realization that the thoughts which this thread has occasioned have brought me to is that used to has a syntactic sibling in ought to, which I now consider its closest grammatical relative, purely in terms of its syntactic behavior. There are interesting differences, too, of course.

For you, Piscean, is it both possible and correct to say Did he ought to do that? as an alternative to Ought he to have done that?

 

[Tarheel]

People have strong opinions about grammar.
;-)

 

[Phaedrus]

The forms did you used to and I didn't used to are unacceptable (2), in that auxiliary DO is followed by the second form of a full verb. They are, however common.

[. . .]

2. I shall reconsider my use of 'unacceptable' when I get round to my next revision of the book.

Amen, Piscean. That judgement is worth reconsidering, especially since the reason you gave is questionable. As I see it, this controversy about spelling is really about the status of used (to) as a verb. Is it a full verb or a modal auxiliary or something in between? I maintain that it is not a full verb (the preterite of use), even if most dictionaries still classify it as such. If it were a full verb, it should (a) be capable of appearing in its base form outside the context of do-support in the past tense, (b) be capable of being preceded by infinitival to, (c) be capable of being preceded by a modal, and (d) be capable of appearing as a gerund; yet it is not capable of any of these things, as we have seen.

Meanwhile, it does exhibit some of the NICE properties: everybody knows that used to used to be used with contraction and with subject-auxiliary inversion. So, whether or not it is a full-blooded modal, as seems doubtful, it seems clearly to be more modal than full verb. The modal, or modal-like construction, with which used to may be most closely compared, in my opinion, is ought to. No other modal besides ought (and, I believe, used) takes an infinitival complement: we don't have *will to/could to/would to/etc. It is most fascinating, therefore, for me to learn from you that you can say things like Did he ought to do that? That is not part of my English. If I had to interpret it, I could not interpret it as referring to the present, as you seem to: *?Did he ought to do that right now?

Since I fear that this thread is on the verge of moderator-excommunication, beachboy not having yet liked the last few posts, I should probably go ahead and give the Garner quote to which I alluded in my first reply. Although it is not modest for me to say so, I am fonder of my own arguments in this thread. He makes an argument from pronunciation, which, as you have pointed out, Piscean, may be countered by appeal to context, which generally shows which meaning of use(d) is intended. Garner also refers, erroneously (I'm sorry to say), to use as present tense in didn't use to, whereas it is actually tenseless, did carrying the tense.

"Didn't used to; didn't use to. The negative form—whichever you choose—doesn't occur nearly as often as the positive. Did not use to has been in constant use throughout the English-speaking world since about 1675. Did not used to didn't come into common use till the early 20th century—and didn't surpass the traditional form in AmE till the mid-1970s. In BrE, did not use to remains predominant, but the two forms have vied closely since the mid-1970s.

. . . The question whether the phrase should be written didn't use to has stirred up some controversy among usage pundits. The argument goes that didn't supplies the past tense, and the main verb that follows should be in the present tense, as it is in a sentence such as You didn't have [not had] to do that. But used to can be seen as an idiomatic phrase based on an archaic meaning of use (= to be in the habit of). On this view, the form of the verb is fixed in the positive used to and is unchanged in the far less common (and far less accepted) negative form, didn't used to.

How might we know this? After all, when the phrase is spoken, the -d of used is drowned out by the t- of to. The proponents of didn't use to make much of this, arguing that since we can't resolve the usage question by listening to speakers, we have to decide on the basis of traditional grammar. But in fact, we can draw an inference from pronunciation of the -s- in use (/yooz/) and used (/yoost/), and it supports the idiomatic phrase didn't used to.

In modern journalistic sources, didn't used to is almost twice as common as didn't use to. When didn't use to does appear, it commonly occurs in transcribed speech. . . . But remember the standard form that can save you headaches: never used to. It avoids the grammatical problem of did + [past tense]. It keeps used. And it doesn't reek of dialect."

-- Garner, Bryan A. Garner's Modern English Usage (4th Ed.), pp. 936-937. Oxford University Press: New York, 2016

Of course, the problem can't be avoided thus where questions with used to are concerned.

 

[jutfrank]

How does the pronunciation of the 's' as /s/ support the idiomatic phrase didn't used to? Is Garner suggesting that if the word were actually the lexical verb use, it would be pronounced with a /z/?

Have I got that right? If so, that doesn't seem to follow.