used not to be/were not

What would be the aspectual difference, if any, between these, IYOs?

When we were younger, we used not to be allowed to drink coffee.
When we were younger, we were not allowed to drink coffee.

I would more likely say

When we were younger, we didn't use to be allowed to drink coffee.
but either way 'used to' indicates a situation that no longer applies

When we were younger, we didn't use to be allowed to drink coffee, but now we are.

Whereas for the simple past:
When we were younger, we were not allowed to drink coffee.

Though the situation may have changed there is no automatic presumption that it has

When we were younger, we were not allowed to drink coffee and we still aren't today

When we were younger, we were not allowed to drink coffee, but now we are.

<I would more likely say

When we were younger, we didn't use to be allowed to drink coffee.
>

One dictionary gives that choice as non-satndard:
NOT STANDARD He did used to work there, didn't he?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=87518&dict=CALD

<but either way 'used to' indicates a situation that no longer applies>

Most cases are that way, but this is more precise description of "used to", IMO:

That's not exactly true:

(i) The statement was true for a period in the past.
(ii) For a period subsequent to that during which the statement was true, the statement was not true.

<When we were younger, we were not allowed to drink coffee and we still aren't today

When we were younger, we were not allowed to drink coffee, but now we are. >

I agree.

Sorry, Davidab, I posted this:

<Guest Thu Aug 23, 2007 7:06 am GMT
<I would more likely say

When we were younger, we didn't use to be allowed to drink coffee.

etc...>

Edited post:

<but either way 'used to' indicates a situation that no longer applies>

That's not exactly true.

Most cases are that way, but this is more precise description of "used to", IMO:



(i) The statement was true for a period in the past.
(ii) For a period subsequent to that during which the statement was true, the statement was not true.

M56,

<One dictionary gives that choice as non-satndard:
NOT STANDARD He did used to work there, didn't he? >

This is not what I wrote. I wrote

we didn't use to be allowed to drink coffee.

notice the negative 'not' and the lack of 'd' on 'use.

I used to - I didn't use to
I wanted to - I didn't want to
I needed to - I didn't need to
etc

all follow the same grammar rules about negating the past simple


<(i) The statement was true for a period in the past.
(ii) For a period subsequent to that during which the statement was true, the statement was not true.>

This is just a convoluted way of saying that the situation no longer applies

Googling "used not to be" retrieves 24,000 hits. As an aside, some poor design in the google search engine allows for the introduction of punctuation marks if you enter your query between inverted commas. Therefore, that includes also instances of "...used. Not to be.." for example.

<This is just a convoluted way of saying that the situation no longer applies >

M56 is right, the situation may again exist.

Any bus. Any city. Any day.


Old White Woman (carrying a small suitcase and seeing a group of Asian immigrants): My goodness, this town has changed a lot.
Fellow Passenger: Are you visiting friends?
Old White Woman: No, I've recently moved back here. I used to live here when I was a girl.

<I would never say "used not to be...". I might say "used to not be..." though. >

And your reply to the thread question?