0
Anonymous Posted 17 years ago
Grammar
Used to/would
I know the difference between used to and would(I mean when they are used for the past).But I had an argument with my teacher about one exercise.
Choose the correct form.
Also, I must say I used to be a well-behaved child and didn't use to complain about anything. I didn't use to/wouldn't have any responsibilities so I used to feel free and happy playing around with my friends all time.
My teacher said both forms were possible but I think only didn't use to is correct. Who is right?
Choose the correct form.
Also, I must say I used to be a well-behaved child and didn't use to complain about anything. I didn't use to/wouldn't have any responsibilities so I used to feel free and happy playing around with my friends all time.
My teacher said both forms were possible but I think only didn't use to is correct. Who is right?
Top answer
You are. Used to doesn't always denote habitual action: He used to live in Paris when he was younger. = He lived in Paris when he was younger.
- You are.
- Used to doesn't always denote habitual action: He used to live in Paris when he was younger.
- = He lived in Paris when he was younger.
- In your sentence the meaning of I didn't use to have is I didn't have , and that's why wouödn't have is wrong.
- Please note that some dictionaries also accept I didn't use d to have.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
10 Answers
0
You are. Used to doesn't always denote habitual action: He used to live in Paris when he was younger. = He lived in Paris when he was younger. In your sentence the meaning of I didn't use to have is I didn't have, and that's why wouödn't have is wrong. Please note that some dictionaries also accept I didn't used to have.
CB
CB
00
Dear friend,
in addition to the comment made by Cool Breeze, I have to say that only one verb form is possible in this particular case. We don't use would when there is no mention of a specific time or set of occasions on which some action repeatedly took place. Cf:
Whenever we went to my uncle Jack's house, we would/used to play in the garden.
in addition to the comment made by Cool Breeze, I have to say that only one verb form is possible in this particular case. We don't use would when there is no mention of a specific time or set of occasions on which some action repeatedly took place. Cf:
Whenever we went to my uncle Jack's house, we would/used to play in the garden.
00
Yes, but consider:
When I was a child, I wouldn't have any responsibilities.
It has a time reference, and it's still not good. I hesitate to consider the time reference the factor that sanctions the use of would.
CJ
When I was a child, I wouldn't have any responsibilities.
It has a time reference, and it's still not good. I hesitate to consider the time reference the factor that sanctions the use of would.
CJ
00
Hmm. The last time we discussed this we came to the conclusion that "would" can only be used to talk about things that happened regularly, and not about "states" or things that just "existed".
Having responsibilities is probably seen as something that just "exists" and continues, not as something that "happens" regularly at certain points in time.
But if you change that to
Having responsibilities is probably seen as something that just "exists" and continues, not as something that "happens" regularly at certain points in time.
But if you change that to
00
KooyeenDoes this make any sense?It's right on the money as far as I'm concerned. Good examples.
00
It makes perfect sense, Kooyeen.
Indeed, used to, rather than would, is used when we talk about past states that have changed:
The factory used to be in the city centre.
I used to smoke heavily when I was at university.
In my previous post about the unacceptability of would I emphasized that the time reference
Indeed, used to, rather than would, is used when we talk about past states that have changed:
The factory used to be in the city centre.
I used to smoke heavily when I was at university.
In my previous post about the unacceptability of would I emphasized that the time reference
00
1. "We used to play in the garden. <only one form is possible without any time reference>"
I take this to mean that 1a is ungrammatical and 1b, grammatical.
1a. *We would play in the garden.
1b. We used to play in the garden.
2. "the time reference it [i.e. would] requires is specific, and the adverbial when I was a child is a way too
I take this to mean that 1a is ungrammatical and 1b, grammatical.
1a. *We would play in the garden.
1b. We used to play in the garden.
2. "the time reference it [i.e. would] requires is specific, and the adverbial when I was a child is a way too
00
CalifJim2a. *When I was a child, I would play in the garden.Do you actually consider 2a to be incorrect, Jim? Or are you being facetious?
2b. When I was a child, I used to play in the garden.
This usage of "would" often conveys a feeling of nostalgia about a past habitual/regular activity, and I for one can certainly imagine someone think
00
YankeeDo you actually consider 2a to be incorrect, Jim? Or are you being facetious?I am merely summarizing and hoping to get confirmation on what I believe to be logical deductions from Gleb's remarks on the subject. What I personally consider correct or incorrect has nothing to do with it. No, I'm not being facetious. The quoted material labeled 1 and 2
00
Related Questions