Used to play football/would play football

[Rachel Adams]

According to this article below in the sentence "When he was at school, he used to play football every Saturday", either "would" or "used to" is correct because it was a repeated action. In Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage" there is an explanation "we use "used to" not "would" to talk about regular and important habitual behaviour:
"Robert used to play a lot of football". (Not Robert would play).
"I used to smoke." (Not would smoke)

Is it wrong to use "would" in Michael Swan's example and in similar examples without "every Saturday" or a similar expression that would make it clear that it's a repeated action?

BBC World Service | Learning English | Ask about English

English language experts answers students' language questions.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[5jj]

Yes.

 

[Phaedrus]

Is it wrong to use "would" in Michael Swan's example and in similar examples without "every Saturday" or a similar expression that would make it clear that it's a repeated action?

When an adverbial clause is involved, "would" in the main clause can itself sometimes make the difference between a one-time and a habitual reading:

(1) While his wife cooked dinner, John read the newspaper.
(2) While his wife cooked dinner, John would read the newspaper.

Without a lot of contextual padding for a habitual interpretation, (1) would naturally be understood as being about one combined past cooking and reading event.

In (2), however, "would" makes it clear that past repetitiveness is involved. (Compare: "In those days, while his wife cooked dinner, John read the newspaper").

 

[Rachel Adams]

When an adverbial clause is involved, "would" in the main clause can itself sometimes make the difference between a one-time and a habitual reading:

(1) While his wife cooked dinner, John read the newspaper.
(2) While his wife cooked dinner, John would read the newspaper.

Without a lot of contextual padding for a habitual interpretation, (1) would naturally be understood as being about one combined past cooking and reading event.

In (2), however, "would" makes it clear that past repetitiveness is involved. (Compare: "In those days, while his wife cooked dinner, John read the newspaper").

Yes, and that's why using "would" in
"Robert used to play a lot of football". (Not Robert would play).
"I used to smoke." (Not would smoke) would be wrong because there is no repetitiveness involved. Right?

 

[Rachel Adams]

Yes.

This sentence is from "English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy. "He used to smoke 40 cigarettes a day." So in this sentence "would" can be used because "a day" implies repetitiveness. Am I right?

 

[5jj]

The main difference between used to and would is that used to strongly implies he does not smoke any more; would does not suggest this.

He would smoke 40 cigarettes a day needs context to make it work, for example, when he was stressed.

 

[Rachel Adams]

The main difference between used to and would is that used to strongly implies he does not smoke any more; would does not suggest this.

He would smoke 40 cigarettes a day needs context to make it work, for example, when he was stressed.

Can "would" also suggest that the person doesn't smoke or doesn't do something anymore in some contexts? Or does it never suggest that something no longer happens? For example, "He would smoke 40 cigarettes a day when he was stressed" this can happen again. Is this why "would" unlike "used to" doesn't suggest that it is no longer happening?

 

[5jj]

Can "would" also suggest that the person doesn't smoke or doesn't do something anymore in some contexts?

Yes. As a child I would sometimes go the garden and eat worms. If an adult uttered those words, we would assume that they no longer indulged in this practice.

Is this why "would" unlike "used to" doesn't suggest that it is no longer happening?

Would, in itself, has nothing to do with whether or not something still happens.

 

[Rachel Adams]

Yes. As a child I would sometimes go the garden and eat worms. If an adult uttered those words, we would assume that they no longer indulged in this practice.

Would, in itself, has nothing to do with whether or not something still happens.

I see now.
But why does this article say about similar sentences that the following sentence is ungrammatical? *I would watch cartoons every Saturday morning when I was very little. Now I rarely watch TV.

The difference between USED TO and WOULD | Britannica Dictionary

Used to and would are both use to describe something that happened regularly in the past but doesn't happen any longer, as shown in the following

learnersdictionary.com

 

[5jj]

I don't know why they said that. I don't agree with their comments.

 

[Rachel Adams]

I don't know why they said that. I don't agree with their comments.

My humble opinion; I think they suggest that would is correct only after a time frame. But is that true?

 

[5jj]

• *I would watch cartoons every Saturday morning when I was very little. Now I rarely watch TV.
• When I was little, I would get up and watch cartoons every Saturday morning. Now I rarely watch TV.

They say that the first one is awkward and ungrammatical but that the second is fine. I don't agree.

 

[Rachel Adams]

• *I would watch cartoons every Saturday morning when I was very little. Now I rarely watch TV.
• When I was little, I would get up and watch cartoons every Saturday morning. Now I rarely watch TV.

They say that the first one is awkward and ungrammatical but that the second is fine. I don't agree.

So mentioning a time frame first, isn't necessary, is it? As a standalone sentence, a sentence with "would" can work. I mean their first sentence. Right?

You said He would smoke 40 cigarettes a day needs context to make it work, for example, when he was stressed. But it's different from their sentence which they say is wrong.

 

[5jj]

I think that the first sentence (I would watch cartoons every Saturday morning when I was very little) is acceptable.

 

[Rachel Adams]

I think that the first sentence (I would watch cartoons every Saturday morning when I was very little) is acceptable.

So is "He would smoke 40 cigarettes when he was stressed." And "When he was stressed he would smoke 40 cigarettes." Is aslo correct. The time frame first. As they say in that article. Am I right?

 

[jutfrank]

I don't know why they said that. I don't agree with their comments.

I think that page is badly explained.

For me, a crucial part of the use of would, which used to doesn't have, is the sense that the past habit is in some sense characteristic of the performer of the action. In other words, it expresses tendency. I think this is why it isn't used with stative verbs.

I'm desperately trying to understand what the writer is thinking with the 'watching cartoons' examples. I'm guessing it's that she believes that introducing the utterance with the time frame (When I was little) better affords it to be read as an expression of tendency, given that the sentence is out of context. I don't know.

In any case, Rachel Adams, I suggest you give up completely on this idea of putting the time frame first. It's unhelpful and it's obviously confusing you.

 

[Rachel Adams]

I think that page is badly explained.

For me, a crucial part of the use of would, which used to doesn't have, is the sense that the past habit is in some sense characteristic of the performer of the action. In other words, it expresses tendency. I think this is why it isn't used with stative verbs.

I'm desperately trying to understand what the writer is thinking with the 'watching cartoons' examples. I'm guessing it's that she believes that introducing the utterance with the time frame (When I was little) better affords it to be read as an expression of tendency, given that the sentence is out of context. I don't know.

In any case, Rachel Adams, I suggest you give up completely on this idea of putting the time frame first. It's unhelpful and it's obviously confusing you.

I understand. But it is it true that unlike "used to," "would do" doesn't work as a standalone sentence, as in "He would smoke 40 cigarettes a day" without "when he was stressed" or "He would play football" without "every Sunday", "Tom would drink a lot of coffee" without "when he was younger"?

 

[5jj]

Yes.

 

[Tdol]

I understand. But it is it true that unlike "used to," "would do" doesn't work as a standalone sentence, as in "He would smoke 40 cigarettes a day" without "when he was stressed" or "He would play football" without "every Sunday", "Tom would drink a lot of coffee" without "when he was younger"?

It's possible that it would work as a sentence in a wider context, but as a standalone,I agree with you.