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/