Grammar

Question

what grammaical structure is 'used to have'?

CalifJim · Accepted Answer

Anonymous~~what~~ What grammatical structure is 'used to have'?

'used to' is listed by Palmer (The English Verb) as "a very marginal member of the primary auxiliaries". It signals habitual actions in the past.

Karen often takes a bubble bath late in the afternoon. (Present habit)

Karen often used to take a bubble bath late in the afternoon. (Past habit)

CJ

Avangi · Answer

Anonymouswhat grammaical structure is 'used to have'?

You might check our search engine. I've seen plenty of posts on it.

I believe it's considered an idiom, but in terms of grammar, I don't think it's much different from "I liked to go to the beach when I was a child." (I liked going to the beach as a child.)

The verbal phrase is object of the past tense verb.

I used to go shopping all the time.

Since it's an idiom, you can't substitute the gerund for the infinitive and retain the same meaning.

That's my opinion. If I can find a good reference, I'll add it.

- A.

Edit.Ah, Thank ***! There's Jim!

So "used to" could equal "did [often]"?

Do you like going to Tijuana? (reply) I used to go there in the past. / I did [often/sometimes] go there in the past.

I wonder if there are other common analyses?

CalifJim · Answer

AvangiSo "used to" could equal "did [often]"?

The tag is definitely did, if that's what you're asking.

-- You used to open bottles with your teeth just for fun, didn't you?

-- I did.

It's only seen in the simple past so it is not considered simply the verb to use, but rather an idiom. That is, there is no I am using to ..., I have used to ..., I would have been using to ..., etc.

CJ

Avangi · Answer

Thanks, Jim.
I asked about "other analyses" because I noticed that you quoted one particular source.
So I'll assume that there's general agreement among grammarians that "used to" is a borderline auxilliary.

My "did" example was an attempt to illustrate in my own mind how it would function as a typical auxilliary.

But then your recent post about "do-support" has left me confused about whether or not "do" may be considered an auxilliary at all - or is it in a special category?

(I had previously thought of it as an auxilliary.)

The tag info is useful.

Best regards, - A.

CalifJim · Answer

AvangiI asked about "other analyses" because I noticed that you quoted one particular source.
So I'll assume that there's general agreement among grammarians that "used to" is a borderline auxilliary.

You're right. That's just one source. Since there is hardly ever complete agreement in the field, you're right to think there may be other views on the subject.

Avangiconfused about whether or not "do" may be considered an auxilliary at all - or is it in a special category?

It is one of the 28 forms that serve as auxiliaries. Yes. And it is special in that it alone provides "do-support" -- the mechanism for transforming affirmative statements into negatives and/or questions when no other auxiliary is available in the original affirmative statement. I suppose each of the auxiliaries is special in one way or another. Again quoting from the same source, the 28 forms are:

Finite Non-finite
Primary auxiliaries

is, are, am, was, were, (to) be, being, been

has, have, had, (to) have, having

do, does, did (No non-finite forms from here down.)

Modal auxiliaries

will, would
shall, should
can, could
may, might
must
ought
dare
need

CJ

Avangi · Answer

Thank you.  I was hoping for a list, but didn't dare ask.  (Everything I always wanted to know!)

Grammar

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions