Past habits with used to / would + infinitive / past tense

[denismurs]

Hi,

Could you explain me or give the reference to read about used to / would + infinitive / past tense to describe habits in the past.

E.g.: Throughout the history people used to / did / would make their children to learn the classical music.

The right answer according to the course book is did.
But I'd put any of the given option.

Could you comment it?

Denis.

 

[Raymott]

E.g.: Throughout [STRIKE]the [/STRIKE]history people used to / did / would make their children [STRIKE]to [/STRIKE]learn [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] classical music.

Your course book is unreliable. 'Did' is wrong. I don't like the others much either. I'd choose 'would make' if I had to choose one. But I'd really say this:
"Throughout history, people have made their children learn classical music."

 

[denismurs]

No. The course book is OK generally. This sentence I wrote yesterday in the bus by memory, that's why you found so many mistakes.
But it's true that in the course book might be some errores.

When I'll be at the library I give more information.

 

[TheParser]

"used to / would + infinitive" reference

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, Denismurs:

You probably have already consulted it, but Michael Swan's Practical English Usage has a section on this topic.

If you haven't read it, I am sure that a good library would have the most recent edition. Simply look in the index of the book for the entry number.

He explains, for example, that "would" and "used to" can "refer to repeated actions and events in the past, but only used to can refer to past states." [my emphasis]

His example: "I used to have an old Rolls-Royce." (NOT: "I would have an ....")

 

[denismurs]

Hi, TheParser.
Exactly.
In my course book (Pearson Education Limited recommended by British Council) is written:
HABIT IN THE PAST
Positive statements: used to + infinitive
Negative statements: did/didn't + use to + infinitive
Questions: Did you /she/ they, etc use to + infinitive

"Used to" to talk about past habits and states that do not occur now or no longer exist.

"Would" is also used to talk about past habits and repeated actions but NOT about past states.

Past habit: past simple
When I was a child , I walked to school every day. ( Past simple can also be used to describe past habits and states).

So, doing my exercise where the original sentence is: "Throughout history, parents would / did / used to make sure their children had classical music lessons from a young age."

And the key reference shows the correct answer DID. So, I think I can't use "would" because the sentence tells about a long period of time (history) and it means they're speaking about a general state, not the habit of a person, that's why "would" no matches here.

And I think it's impossible to put "used to" because it's fairly that some parents still agree with the statement and still consider that classical music is good for their children from a young age.

I don't have moreover explanations about why the authors put DID as the right answer. How do you think am I right with my work out?

Denis.

 

[denismurs]

One more question on the same topic:

The sentence is: "As a result many people are used to / would / have got used to regularly and often unknowingly listening to classical music."

Accoding to the coursebook the right answer is "would".

Could be here an infitive missed or we can use "would" independently on it's own as a modal verb of frequency?

 

[Raymott]

When I'll be at the library I give more information.

By the way, this is off-topic but important.
"When I'm at the library, I'll give more information."
"I'll give more information, when I'm at the library."

Note that as a template. The 'will' comes in the main clause, not in the subordinate clause, and never in both.
Future tense in the main clause, simple present in the subordinate.
"When I get home, I'll phone you."
"He'll tell you when he finds out."

 

[denismurs]

The book is wrong. People have got used to listening ..., or they would listen.

Yes, Piscean, I agree with you and I just wanted somebody to confirm my opinion because in the other part of the book of this edition there is another definite mistake. They write about Second Conditional: If+ past simple/continious + would/could etc. + [STRIKE]past participle[/STRIKE]

and at the same time they give such examples as: If I was/were twenty years younger, I'd emigrate.
If I was/were Prime Minister, I'd make health care free.
I wouldn't apply for that job unless I thought I had a good chance getting it.

I revised in another editions and the correct form of Second Conditional is: If+ past simple/continious + would/could etc. + infinitive.

So, definitly by the moment there are two mistakes in my course book.