Didn't it used to make sense?

[evalangui]

Hi everybody,

I have a very simple question, how can "Didn't he used to be great?" be correct? Why is the past tense marked twice? Is it because the verb is "used to"? Because I thought it was "use to", normally used in the past because of its very meaning but still subjected to the same rules as other verbs regarding modal verbs that absorb the

Comments

[yamx]

You're right. The correct form is "Didn't he use to..." Using "used to" there is a frequent mistake, though. With time, it may become accepted as an idiom. (Though personally, I hope it won't.)

[evalangui]

Well, I thought to ask because I saw it in an English newspaper (sports section) so I'm not sure how hopeful we should be.

Anyway, thanks, it's good to know I was right!

[eee_eph]

it's good to know I was right!

Except two native speakers, the writer of the article, and the editor of the newspaper say you're 'wrong'!

It's not about right or wrong, it's about different usages. As a native British English speaker I find your statement frustrating because, in my opinion, yamx's reply is 'wrong' - the statement is grammatically correct to me.

[eee_eph]

Which English are you speaking? Because I have never seen or heard 'use to' in UK English. It's 'used to', and the sentence is correct.

[nyxelestia]

I'll be honest, I think it's incorrect, and the correct form is "Didn't he use to be great?". I know that's what I use...I think it's one of those things which is technically incorrect, but is so common that people think it's correct, anyway.

[evalangui]

Just wanted to make sure. Thanks for the opinion!

[anonymous]

Without getting into what is or is not "correct", let's just look at what's happening:

There was once a verb "use" that meant "to be in the habit of". One could say things like "I use to take a walk every day", meaning that I am in the habit of taking a daily stroll.

Over time this sense was lost except in the past tense. People no longer saw "used" as the past tense of a verb "to use". This is reflected in the change of pronunciation.

The traditional negation is " used not", as in "he used not to be great". That is still the form I normally use. However, this makes "used" an unusual verb because most verbs can only be negated by adding an auxiliary form of " to do". Thus we get "didn't use(d) to". I suppose that "didn't use to"is more logical, but language generally isn't very logical.

Apologies for typos -- I'm on an iPhone

[marnanel]

Listen to this person: they talk sense.

[kazamesu]

Excellent answer.

[hkitsune]

I very much like this response as well.

[vilakins]

I'd say "Didn't he use to be great?", but I see "used to" a lot. I think it's partly the reason given above by the anonymous commenter (which is very interesting) and how it sounds when spoken. Both versions sound very much the same.

[evalangui]

Mmmm... actually the people I asked in RL remarked on how they sounded different XD, but yeah, personally they sound pretty much the same.

[vilakins]

There's a slight break in "used to", but a lot of people run it together anyway. I'm definitely intending to say "I used to do whatver" but most of the time it sounds like "use to".

[darth_paorvosa]

Yeah, that's definitely not correct, but I'm pretty sure that when I and most people I know say it out loud, it sounds like "didn't he used to". I've never had to write it down before.

[houseboatonstyx]

Me neither. It's one of those things that people don't write down. ;-)

'He used to be great' is okay spoken or casually written.

'Did/didn't he use to be great' would look very odd written, like a typo had omitted the 'd'.

'Did/didn't he used to be great' would look sort of coarse, colloqual.

'Useto' and 'used to' sound almost identical. 'Well, he used to' would be heard as emphasis.

Southern US