Talk:used to

Indefinite past only?
"Used to" sounds like a reference to a more indefinite past to me. I would use it with adverbial phrases such as " long ago", "some time ago" or "when I was a child". For example, "A few years ago I used to smoke, but I no longer do." Is it still acceptable to use "used to" with more definite time reference, e.g. "Five years ago I used to smoke"? Wouldn't you use Simple Past Tense in this sentence instead: "Five years ago I smoked."
 * There are implications of saying "I used to smoke":
 * A strong one that it was habitual. (One cannot say *"I used to smoke twice" without an explanation and possibly a correction.)
 * A weak, rebuttable one that I no longer smoke. (One can say both "I used to smoke, but I stopped." and "I used to smoke and I still do.")
 * Because of the first, strong implication, the appropriate time reference is an interval of time, usually not sharply specified. "I used to smoke in the 60s and 70s, but not tobacco." "I used to smoke, until I got pregnant." ?"I used to smoke from when I went to college until I got married."
 * There are different implications of "I smoked":
 * It may only have been once.
 * Because smoking tobacco etc is known to be habitual, the sense of "smoke" may not refer to something else as in the joke: "Do you smoke after sex?" / "I don't know, I've never looked."
 * Thus the oddness to me of ?"Five years ago I smoked." It would need further explanation, IMO. OTOH, "Five years ago I smoked" also needs some explanation, in contrast to "Until five years ago, I smoked".
 * The difficulty in clarifying this is related to the combination of the distinction between completed and not completed actions and between habitual/repeated actions and one-time actions. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Awkward-sounding avoidance of split infinitive.
In the usage notes, there is to be found the following: "didn't used to (the latter is considered by many grammatically to be wrong)"

The placement of the adverb here before the to + verb construction seems, to my ear, rather odd. Wouldn't it sound more natural to place grammatically at the very end of the clause?

More to the point, is there any known guidance as to this positioning of the adverb? Shouldn't the word grammatically, when placed as above, lie within commas?


 * ✅ Fixed. Equinox ◑ 00:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Formerly"
"Used to" is a verb phrase; "formerly" is an adverb. You cannot simply translate one with the other, though you can probably always use "formerly" as part of the translation. "I used to do this" = "I formerly did this". (In writing this, I'm interested to note that "formerly" here implies something habitual). Koro Neil (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

did [subject] used to...?
Surely the correct one is did [subject] use to...? --Backinstadiums (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've expanded that part of the notes and added a reference. - -sche (discuss) 18:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

What did you used to do?
Page 496 of Collins Cobuild English Usage reads

You form 'yes/no'-questions by putting did in front of the subject, followed by use to: Did you used to play with your trains? If the 'wh'-word is the object of the clause, or part of the object, you use the auxiliary do after it, followed by the subject and used to: What did you used to do on Sundays?

However, I do not know why used is compulsory in wh-questions, unlike in yes/no-questions. https://oed.com/oed2/00273881 --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If you cited correctly, they say "followed by use to" and then they write "did you used to play". So the section seems faulty. In my opinion the only correct form is "did you use to". The pronunciation is the same of course, but it's simply a matter of logic. I'm sure the sentences "he puts some sugar on it" and "he put some sugar on it" will typically be indistinguishable in speech; nevertheless only the former spelling would be accepted for the present and only the latter for the past tense. 92.218.236.54 06:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

✳had used to be
✳had used to be is unidiomatic in place of had (once) been --Backinstadiums (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Usage note: vs would
Temporary or repeated states are allowed with would so we encounter: She would get irritable if I asked too many questions She would often be found in the garden Permanent states are not allowed with would so we do not encounter: *She would be an impatient person although She would get impatient is allowed because the state is temporary.

In the negative and interrogative forms would is often avoided in favour of used to because to many: I wouldn't get up early when I was on holiday and Would you often have lunch on the terrace? sound stilted.

What both verbs are doing is signalling that a verb is to be considered both past and habitual in aspect.

https://www.eltconcourse.com/training/inservice/modality/semimodals.html#2 JMGN (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Usage note: Time adverbs of indefinite frequency
She used frequently to start early or She frequently used to start early JMGN (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)