did used to

<< The 'rules' never had any historical precedence in English, unlike the rule that says a conjugated verb cannot go after another conjugated verb in the same clause. This rule exists not only in English but in many other languages. >>

'What about the apparent that "do" can never be followed by an auxiliary verb, where this sense of "use" is the only exception I can think of?'

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'auxiliary verb'. Like 'use' 'dare' and 'need' have quasi-modal forms which alternate with ordinary negative forms.

I dared not ask
I didn't dare ask

'As I said before, either way, it's an exceptional case. It would be reasonable to argue that "use" is more historically sound, but my point was and is that "used" may not be as utterly nonsensical as it may seem at first.'


If it's followed by another auxiliary verb, that the auxiliary verb can never be in simple past or simple present. If it's 'use' it's the infinitive without to not the simple present. If it's 'used' it's past participle not the simple past

David

I have no problem inserting two [t] sounds together in "used to" which makes it clearly distinct from "use to". Why do others have such difficulty?

Why do we write them as "use to" and "used to" anyway? We should start writing them as "useto" and "usedto" instead, as well it makes it distinct from "used to" [juzd tu] "wood is used to make things".

You learned English as a foreigner and probably learned how to read English from the beginning, so you feel a need to follow the written language in your speech. Native speakers learn the pronunciation of "use to" and "used to" before they learn how to read, and it is unnatural for them to change their pronunciation to match the spelling for phrases they already know.

Guest,

<<You learned English as a foreigner and probably learned how to read English from the beginning, so you feel a need to follow the written language in your speech. Native speakers learn the pronunciation of "use to" and "used to" before they learn how to read, and it is unnatural for them to change their pronunciation to match the spelling for phrases they already know.>>

Agree 100%. That's one of the reasons I'm refusing to necessarily watch shows in Japanese with subtitles or rushing for the lyrics when I'm listening to a song.

<Why do we write them as "use to" and "used to" anyway? We should start writing them as "useto" and "usedto" instead, as well it makes it distinct from "used to" [juzd tu] "wood is used to make things". >

How about these? Should we begin writing each one diffrently?

bow - To bend forward at the waist in respect (e.g. "bow down")
bow - the front of the ship (e.g. "bow and stern")
bow - the weapon which fires arrows (e.g. "bow and arrow")
bow - a kind of tied ribbon (e.g. bow on a present, a bowtie)
bow - to bend outward at the sides (e.g. a "bow-legged" cowboy)

Travis : « "Used to" seems to be a defective quasimodal verb; (...) it lacks a present form, and only has a preterite/past participle form ("used to") and an infinitive form ("use to"). »

Zwar ist es richtig was heutige Synchronie betrifft. In der Vergangenheit war es auch der Fall, so wie diese mittelenglischen Sätze hindeuten :

« A cowntesse of Gascoigne, of the childe of whom Galfride Plantagenet, fader to this kynge, come, was maryede oonly for her beawte, whiche cowntesse •••used to••• comme but selde to the churche, and when sche come to the churche sche taryede unnethe to the secretes of the masse. »

« Also forþermore oure lord Ihesu Criste goddis sone, þat leued here in þis world, as a wise marchaunte •••vsed to••• ches good marchaundyse & refused þe bad ; for when þei wold haue maade hym kynge of Iude, he refused it & ches rather to flee in to deserte, & when þei souȝt him to turment hym & to sle hym, he fled not but ches rather for to deye & seid Ego sum, I am he whome ȝe sech. »

Trotzdem werden (offensichtliche) konjugierte Formen auch gefunden :

« An other ensaumple y will tell you of them that •••usen to••• clatre, speke, and iangle atte the masse, in the whiche whanne thei shulde haue herde the deuyne seruice of God. »

« But neþeles devoute men þat be disposed to preie þanne, God forbede þat þei shulden be lettid ; but make we no general reule to undispose men on þe dai, whanne þei shulden do workes of liȝt. Wel I woot þat þeves •••usen to••• worche on nyȝt and slepe on þe dai, and so usen þese neue þeves þat comen in abov þe dore ; for Crist koude have tauȝt þis preier if it hadde more plesid him, as he koude hav tauȝte to preie, and lefte to preche his gospel to men. »

Il serait intéressant d'en savoir davantage sur [1] le remplacement de VA <brucan> → MA <bruken> <brouke> par AF <user> → MA <usen> — [2] la conjugaison de MA <usen> et l'établissement graduel du statut de <used to> ← <usen to>.

Greg, what's your point? How does all that relate to contemporary use?

Pos : c'est une piste de réflexion que j'indique à Travis car je sais qu'il s'intéresse aux langues germaniques et à leur histoire.

<<How about these? Should we begin writing each one diffrently?

bow - To bend forward at the waist in respect (e.g. "bow down")
bow - the front of the ship (e.g. "bow and stern")
bow - the weapon which fires arrows (e.g. "bow and arrow")
bow - a kind of tied ribbon (e.g. bow on a present, a bowtie)>>

No, we should just write differently the one's which are pronounced differently. So, for instance, the first two should be spelled with a different spelling from the second two.

<<I dared not ask
I didn't dare ask <

Which one has the quasi form?

<I have no problem inserting two [t] sounds together in "used to" which makes it clearly distinct from "use to". Why do others have such difficulty? >

The question is why. Why do you feel the need to insert two t sounds?

<Pos : c'est une piste de réflexion que j'indique à Travis car je sais qu'il s'intéresse aux langues germaniques et à leur histoire. >

Sorry, Greg, I don't speak French. Could you write that message in English?

<So, for instance, the first two should be spelled with a different spelling from the second two. >

Why? We all know that English is not phonetic. We all know that context is the key.

<No, we should just write differently the one's which are pronounced differently.>

How would these new spellng look? Can you suggest how we should spell those words?