0
Anonymous Posted 17 years ago
Grammar

Used to/would

Ok. I know that used to and would are used to talk about past habits. The diffrence is that would isn't used to talk about states. But I just can't understand which verbs are states? The ones which don't have progressive forms? If so, why it's writen in my book that would live is wrong. Is this verb a state?
Sorry if I am asking too much questions, but I really can't get it.
  

Top answer

Anonymous which verbs are states? The ones which don't have progressive forms? No.

— CalifJim

  • Anonymous which verbs are states?
  • The ones which don't have progressive forms?
  • No.
  • Even some stative verbs are occasionally used in the progressive.
  • A stative verb is one that "has no moving parts".
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.

13 Answers
0
Anonymouswhich verbs are states? The ones which don't have progressive forms?
No. Even some stative verbs are occasionally used in the progressive. A stative verb is one that "has no moving parts". jump is not stative; it describes motion. eat is not stative; you have to move (arm, fingers, mouth) to eat. Roughly, if you can do it without an
0
0
Too much many questions.
0
0
What about feel? For example, can you say we would feel happy or only used to is correct here?
0
0
AnonymousWhat about feel? For example, can you say we would feel happy or only used to is correct here?
As a habitual past, would feel happy has an odd ring to it. I would use only used to. Nobody can see that you feel happy (unless you tell them).
0
0
Hmm, this is weird. What does "would" have to do with the distinction between stative and non-stative verbs?

But that bird kept coming back every month or so. It would stay on the windowsill for no more than ten minutes, and then disappear. Every time that mysterious black bird came back, I would feel happy for days.
(Disclaimer: The above paragraph was totally made up and it
0
0
KooyeenBut that bird kept coming back every month or so. It would stay on the windowsill for no more than ten minutes, and then disappear. Every time that mysterious black bird came back, I would feel happy for days.
Hmm. You're right. It is possible to contextualize would feel happy that way.
KooyeenWhat does "would" ha
0
0
CalifJim
KooyeenWhat does "would" have to do with the distinction between stative and non-stative verbs?
I don't know! The poster seems to have read it in a grammar book so it must be true, right?
0
0
dokterjokkebrokIs it perhaps that using 'would + stative verb' results in an ambigual ambiguous meaning?
You make a good point. I can't help thinking, though, that there's even more to be said about the distinction between would and used towhen expressing habitual action in the past.
0
0
The way I see it, "would" used that way is a kind of "future in the past" anyway. In other words, I always consider "abitual-would" to be a kind of "future in the past". It introduces something that "would happen later as a result" on certain occasions in the past.

Scenario: If Jane calls me, I (will) hide.

Whenever Jane called me, I would hide in the basement.
0
0
from orlapubs.com:

Used to (habitual) "He used to sit there like that in those days."
Would (characterizing) "She would sit there like that in those days."

useta = "habitually did"--a past habitual modality.
When the action or state referred to is characteristic, would is used instead of
0

Related Questions