If some speakers think it fit to say "I used not to play football.", would the same speakers also find it fit to say "I am used not to play/playing football"?
I am used not to
No, 'I am used to' has a different meaning and grammar from 'I used to
'I used to play' = simple past tense of use followed by to-infinitive = a past habit no longer done
'I am used to playing = past participle of 'use' as an adjective, followed by preposition 'to' followed by gerund. = I am accustomed to playing.
'used' in this meaning always goes after a state verb such as 'be' 'become' 'get' 'seem' 'grow', etc and the verb after 'to' must always be in -ing form
The negative form is always:
I am not used to playing
David
'I used to play' = simple past tense of use followed by to-infinitive = a past habit no longer done
'I am used to playing = past participle of 'use' as an adjective, followed by preposition 'to' followed by gerund. = I am accustomed to playing.
'used' in this meaning always goes after a state verb such as 'be' 'become' 'get' 'seem' 'grow', etc and the verb after 'to' must always be in -ing form
The negative form is always:
I am not used to playing
David
<No, 'I am used to' has a different meaning and grammar from 'I used to>
Yes, we know that, but why can't on split "(be ) used to" if one can split "used to"?
Yes, we know that, but why can't on split "(be ) used to" if one can split "used to"?
Why do you keep making these "If some people say X, might it be possible to say Y?" posts, especially when Y is never something anybody ever says? This is an honest question; I really want to know.
- Kef
- Kef
<<"I used not to play football.">>
I'd say "I used to not play football" myself, rather than "I used not to play football". The latter actually sounds quite odd to me.
I'd say "I used to not play football" myself, rather than "I used not to play football". The latter actually sounds quite odd to me.
<Why do you keep making these "If some people say X, might it be possible to say Y?" posts, especially when Y is never something anybody ever says? >
Because what is possible is sometimes probable. Because it's the kind of question that plays on the minds of nonantives when we try to understand your language.
Are you closet-moderating again?
Why not try to answer this question?
<<..- why can't on split "(be ) used to" if one can split "used to"? >>
Because what is possible is sometimes probable. Because it's the kind of question that plays on the minds of nonantives when we try to understand your language.
Are you closet-moderating again?
Why not try to answer this question?
<<..- why can't on split "(be ) used to" if one can split "used to"? >>
Dizzy,
OK, but you have to remember that this is a forum to teach people using a variant of Krashen's input methods. Inventing your own forms without being sure of them I think is a violation of that. At best, if you think that it is a possible form, then perhaps you can search the Internet to see if it exists.
OK, but you have to remember that this is a forum to teach people using a variant of Krashen's input methods. Inventing your own forms without being sure of them I think is a violation of that. At best, if you think that it is a possible form, then perhaps you can search the Internet to see if it exists.
<< Are you closet-moderating again? >>
No, just curious and, admittedly, a little annoyed. I'm allowed to get a little annoyed once in a while, aren't I? ;) It's nothing personal; I just find these debates exasperating.
No, just curious and, admittedly, a little annoyed. I'm allowed to get a little annoyed once in a while, aren't I? ;) It's nothing personal; I just find these debates exasperating.
furrykef,
This sort of thing is also where I think a lot of language learners go wrong. They debate every little possibility that may or not be in a language, and they forget its main purpose.
This sort of thing is also where I think a lot of language learners go wrong. They debate every little possibility that may or not be in a language, and they forget its main purpose.