True, Bob. "Used to" takes do-support and pure modals don't. "Used to" (useta), along with "have to," "had to," and "ought to" (haveta, hadda, oughtta), are often called "quasimodals" because they have some characteristics of modals but not others.
Unlike most other verbs that precede infinitives (want, try, like, need, etc.), they can cannot be used or be analyzed for meaning without the "to."
1. What did you want? We wanted to dance.
But:
2. *What did you used? We used to dance.
3. *What do you have? We have to dance.
4. *What did you have? We had to dance.
5. *What do you ought? We ought to dance.
Unlike other verbs (need, etc.), in quasimodals the verb and "to" are largely, although not entirely, fused.
6. We need desperately to get work.
7. *We have desperately to get work.
The modal "must" does not have a past tense, but the quasimodal "had to" fills that void:
8. These days we must mind our manners.
9. In the past we had to mind our manners.
Finally, in my region (southeastern North Carolina) some modals can be used serially ("I might could do that"). That also works here with "used to":
10. I used to could do that, but not any longer.
Dick
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Robert Yates
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
The problem with the analysis that "used to" is a modal is the fact that
it takes do-support.
1) She used to play soccer.
2) She didn't used to play soccer.
3) She used to play soccer, didn't she?
4) She didn't used to play soccer, did she?
"would, "ought", "should" etc. never take do-support.
Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
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/