0
Inchoateknowledge Posted 20 years ago
Grammar

incognizable modals

there are some oddities I have just dug up in a grammar book and in which you might be interested:

Marginal modal auxiliaries:

used to, ought to, need, dare

used to:

He usedn't to smoke.
He did not use to smoke.
He used to drink, did he not.
Did he use to drink?

ought to:

Ought I to stop smoking? Yes, you ought (to).
You oughtn't to stop smoking.
You do not ought to stop smoking.

dare, need:

may act as modals and full verbs.
The modal usage is restricted to non-assertive contexts, negatives, to if clauses.
  

Top answer

>He usedn't to smoke. Strange to me, but ... com/ztoew

— Marius Hancu

  • >He usedn't to smoke.
  • Strange to me, but ...
  • com/ztoew
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

5 Answers
0
Inchoateknowledgethere are some oddities I have just dug up in a grammar book and in which you might be interested:

Marginal modal auxiliaries:

used to, ought to, need, dare

used to:

He usedn't to smoke.
He did not use to smoke.
He used to drink, did he not.
Did he use to drink?

ought to:

Ought I to stop sm
0
0
A grammar book I use lists the following as the modal auxiliaries:
can/could
may-might
will/would
shall/should
must
ought
and the following as modal-like auxiliaries:
0
0
This is the book I study from.
0
0
"oughtn't" is still used in BrEng. Not sure about "usedn't," though.
0

Related Questions