Craig:

I'm with you when you write, "I like the idea that most of us seem opposed
to legislating this one way or the other." A better question than whether a
grammatical form is right or wrong in some absolute sense is whether it is
or isn't English. If a usage is in widespread use among English speakers, it
is English. That doesn't mean all English is on the same plane. We (and our
students) can and should distinguish between standard and nonstandard
English, national and regional, formal and informal, prestigious and
non-prestigious English. The main criterion for standard English is whether
a usage is widely in use among literate speakers. (Yes, this is an inexact
criterion but a real one; grammarians who like exactitude are in the wrong
business.) By this criterion, "I used to" is standard while "I use to" is
not, but both "I didn't use to" and "I didn't used to" are standard.

It is not the job of grammarians to legislate but to observe, describe, and
try to understand. Of course stylists are free to legislate within their
domain. A publication may, for the sake of consistency, stipulate the use of
one among competing English forms. Will we use 8 a.m., 8 am, or 8 AM? Will
we use "didn't use to" or "didn't used to"? Will we use "till" or "'til"?
Will we treat "data" as singular or plural? Will we allow "who" to represent
an object? But no one outside the domain is required to accept these
stipulations.

As students of language, we believe that actual usage, not the pronouncement
of authorities, determines what is English, but the fact that new
conventions arise to replace comfortable old ones can make hypocrites of us.
To give a personal example, I continue to cringe when I see "Open 'til
midnight." I am likely to speak back to the newspaper, "It's not *'til*,
it's *till*. *Till *has been a perfectly fine preposition in use since Old
English (and even before, coming from Old Norse *til*). It is NOT a
contraction of *until*!" But of course my ranting does no good, and, like it
or not, I am forced to admit that *'til *is now so widely used that it has
now become perfectly standard. History can tell us a lot about our language,
but current usage trumps it every time.

Dick



On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>      "Quasimodal" is a useful category since it denotes similarities and
> disparities. Grammaticalization as a concept can at least open the
> possibility that these constructions are on a path toward modal. We can also
> open up the possibility that grammar patterns exhibit some of the
> eccentricity (delicacy) we find routine in the lexicon.
>     One key, I think, with "used to" is not just that it doesn't have a
> present tense alternative for its modal like meanings, but in a strict sense
> does not have a nonfinite form (in the same way that "have to"and "be able
> to" have.) "Use to" isn't fused and has a different meaning. The exception,
> I guess, might be in the negation examples we have been discussing. The
> argument for "didn't used to" could include the idea that "used to" has
> modalized sufficiently to have lost its nonfinite form. That usage shifts
> back and forth might mean it is still in process and has different status
> for different people.
>     It's an interesting problem. I like the idea that most of us seem
> opposed to legislating this one way or the other.
>
> Craig
>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/