Some thoughts on a wretched little word, USED.
Not in its simple usage, I USED THE CAR YESTERDAY.
I am thinking of when it is doing the job of a weird auxiliary verb: I USED TO ENJOY PLAYING TENNIS.
It is odd; no language I can find mirrors this usage. That is not the problem, though. It adds to the richness of the language to have these quirks.
The problem arises when one wants to play around and impart further nuances of meaning, and poor old USED just seems incapable of coping. Well, it seems to cope, until you analyse what you are doing with the words. If you are talking, as distinct from writing, you can mumble to camouflage the confusion. If you are writing, you need to sort the matter out.
First and most simply, the negative:
A: I USED TO ENJOY PLAYING TENNIS.
B: OH, I DIDN’T. (Expand? I DIDN’T USED TO ENJOY PLAYING TENNIS. Doesn’t sound correct; how about I DIDN’T USE TO ENJOY PLAYING TENNIS? No! Not possible!)
The only form that makes sense to me would be I USED NOT TO ENJOY PLAYING TENNIS.
Secondly, the interrogative:
DID YOU USED TO ENJOY TENNIS? or
DID YOU USE TO ENJOY TENNIS?
no and no. So,
USED YOU TO ENJOY PLAYING TENNIS?
Well, at least the bits make sense: USED YOU and USED NOT seem to have a grammatical logic to them, although they do feel slightly pedantic. For me, though, grammatical logic is a greater plus than pedantry is a minus.
Can we call upon some authority to assist? There is a noticeable reluctance from most authorities to become embroiled: understandable but not helpful. Fowler’s Modern English Usage seems not to mention the matter at all. (Perhaps in his day, people used not to employ this usage?) The New Fowler’s Modern English Usage, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1996 (Ed: R W Burchfield) is helpful and interesting: “The matter is much more complicated when used to (less commonly, and usu in colloq contexts, use to) is used in the sense ‘did or had in the past (but no longer) as a customary practice’.” Burchfield refers to Eric Jorgensen in English Studies, 69 (1988) but I have not yet located that article. Burchfield as type (e): “(Only in very informal contexts) With do-support in negative and/or interrogative constructions: He didn’t use to wear gloves – P.Cheney, 1964; What time did she used to return? – L Thomas, 1972; It didn’t use to be that way,’ Manuel said – New Yorker, 1986.
Sorry, Burchfield, Cheney, Thomas and New Yorker: I don’t like any of ‘em.
So then there is type (f): (Now regarded as somewhat formal) Without do-support in negative and/or interrogative constructions: You usen’t to be like that – A. Christie, 1964; The Mistress usedn’t to sleep well at night – A Christie n.d.
Surely the second of these makes more sense than the first, in view of the basic USED TO form, and we should not be fazed by the fact we do not pronounce the “d”: many are the letters which appear in the writing but are not pronounced in the speaking.
Finally, a link. The British Council shows an enviable certainty in its website for learners of English:
‘used to + infinitive’
We use ‘used to’ to talk about things that happened in the past – actions or states – that no longer happen now.
- She used to be a long distance runner when she was younger.
- I used to eat meat but I became a vegetarian 5 years ago.
The negative is ‘didn’t use to’ and questions are formed with ‘Did you use to …?’
http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/grammar-reference/%E2%80%98used-infinitive%E2%80%99-and-%E2%80%98beget-used-to%E2%80%99 (link as at 1 July, 2013)
I envy the certainty but I dispute the assertion!