Using "used to" in some special context.

[man of manners]

Hi!
I have a very objective question to ask!
Can we use "used to" in the if-clause in the second conditional of if to express "The past subjunctive/Unreal past" which refers to future aspect/tense?

Thanks in advance!

 

[man of manners]

Have you a sentence in mind?

Oh, yes.
Do you find the following sentence grammatically correct? "If he used to study more often, it would be easier for him to pass the test" given that the context is future tense as other second conditionals? BTW any sentence will do.

 

[man of manners]

If he used to study more often (than he does now) [and that seems to be a possibility], then it would be easier for him to pass the test (than if he did not in fact study more often in the past). [Comment: I can now understand that it does not refer to future time]
Incidentally, second conditionals are about present, general or future time, not future tense.[Comment: unintentionally written word]

I have so good an addition in order that I can be less confused. "If he used to study more often in the few years to come, it would be easier for him to pass the test". What about now? :roll:

 

[man of manners]

That is not possible. 'Used to' is used for things that happened in the past. It cannot be used with future reference.

I highly appreciate this direct clear answer which is quite sufficient to me, but do you have any reasons that this is not possible?

 

[man of manners]

I gave the reason in post 6.

I want to know why it cannot be used with a future reference. That is what I meant.

 

[GoesStation]

I want to know why it cannot be used with a future reference. That is what I meant.

Used to can only be used to refer to the past. That's simply how the auxiliary works.

 

[man of manners]

Used to can only be used to refer to the past. That's simply how the auxiliary works.

I did think that American English does not regard "used to" as a modal verb. Am I right?

 

[man of manners]

The following, from a paper I wrote once, may make things clear:

Really, that is a very useful explanation. Can you, generously, explain what the terms in red mean according to you because the four first ones are the same to me ?
"For some it is a modal (auxiliary)(verb)1, for others a phrasal modal2, semi-modal3, marginal modal4, marginal auxiliary5, (quasi/semi) auxiliary6 , anomalous finite7 or even iterative aspect auxiliary"

 

[GoesStation]

I did think that American English does not regard "used to" as a modal verb. Am I right?

I don't know what the consensus of American grammarians might be on the subject, if there is one. We use used to the same way as other Anglophones, except perhaps in the negative. Sharp-eyed editors undoubtedly correct it whenever they catch it, but Americans are very likely to write, illogically, didn't used to. This accords with our pronunciation even if there's no good way to explain it logically.

 

[man of manners]

I now came to the conclusion that "used to" cannot be used in the subjunctive mood/the unreal past to give a reference to future time because it is a modal which only refers to the past, and even when used informally/regarded as an ordinary verb, it still cannot be used in the subjunctive mood/the unreal past to give a reference to future time because it should not be considered as the other ordinary verbs in English, I mean it has no present or progressive or perfect form.
Do we all agree on this?

 

[man of manners]

Nobody has mentioned the subjunctive mood; it is not relevant.

How?! I mentioned it in my question. It is relevant. I asked if "used to" can be used in the subjunctive mood as my example says.
'

Used to', having only the one form, does not itself have a present, progressive or, in modern English, a perfect form.

Can't it be used in the perfect tenses? I think it can.

I do not agree that it is a modal.

How do you categorize it?

 

[man of manners]

I'll just confirm that there is no recognisably subjunctive form of 'used to'

This is the direct answer I wanted!

Which do you mean?

I said "Do we all agree with this?" and you did not answer clearly.

I think of it as an auxiliary verb.

Does it differ?

 

[man of manners]

I would like to add something brief: "Ordinary verbs can be used in the real and unreal tenses, in other words, they can be used in the past simple and the subjunctive mood/unreal past, which is the same form as the past simple except, formally, with "be". "Used to" is not an ordinary verb in origin, it was a modal so it cannot be treated as other ordinary verbs when it is used, informally, as one of them because it only has a past reference. So since the subjunctive mood gives a future reference, it cannot be used in it" Do we all agree on this?

 

[man of manners]

No. However, I have said all I can usefully say on this.

What are the points you disagree over in post #21? Perhaps I can improve it.