I was typing that quotation in a hurry and made a typo in the part to which you're referring, jutfrank. I had typed: "But in fact, we can draw an inference from pronunciation of the -s- in use (/yooz/) and(/yoost/), and it supports the idiomatic phrase didn't used to." I should have typed: "But in fact, we can draw an inference from pronunciation of the -s- in use (/yooz/) and used (/yoost/), and it supports the idiomatic phrase didn't used to." (I have edited my post accordingly.) Garner's point is that the spelling "didn't used to" tells us that the pronunciation is /yoost/, whereas the pronunciation is unclear in didn't use to. As Piscean has observed, however, in Post #9 (a reply to my Post #8), context generally makes it clear which meaning is intended. Thus, although beachboy's third example ("What did you use to eat when you were young?") is syntactically ambiguous, presumably it would be uttered or written in a context in which the hearer/reader would grasp whether the speaker was inquiring about instrument ("I used chopsticks to eat when I was young" --> /yooz/) or past eating habits ("I used to eat fish and rice when I was young" --> /yoost/). Nevertheless, Garner's recommendation renders such contextual divination unnecessary: we know from spelling alone that used in a sentence like "What did you used to eat when you were young?" must be pronounced /yoost/, because the spelling makes it clear that the quasi/semi modal used to is being used.How does the pronunciation of the 's' as /s/ support the idiomatic phrase didn't used to? Is Garner suggesting that if the word were actually the lexical verb use, it would be pronounced with a /z/?
Have I got that right? If so, that doesn't seem to follow.
Garner's point is that the spelling "didn't used to" tells us that the pronunciation is /yoost/, whereas the pronunciation is unclear in didn't use to.
I fear that this thread is on the verge of moderator-excommunication ...
Well put. I have been known to relocate (hardly 'excommunicate') such threads to General Language Discussions when the OP has long since lost interest and the replies have gone well over the heads of our client ESL punters, but in this case beachboy is still reading and liking every post.
I doubt it. The mods here are generally pretty tolerant if the original question (Are questions using "used to" common? in this thread) has been dealt with and the ensuing diversion is not too far off topic.
Well put. I have been known to relocate (hardly 'excommunicate') such threads to General Language Discussions when the OP has long since lost interest and the replies have gone well over the heads of our client ESL punters, but in this case beachboy is still reading and liking every post.
Has Jones anything to say about why/how the verb in the was accustomed sense and the noun have a /s/ sound but the verb in the make use of sense has a /z/?
I think the speculation is that the verb in used to is not actually the common verb use (ju:z), but use (ju:s), being a verbalisation of the noun, and semantically distinct from the common verb.
Odd though this may be, it makes a good deal of sense to me, and certainly explains the pronunciation difference.
I wonder how many other examples there are of this usage. "Were" takes the place of "did": "you did not use(d) to be so hard to persuade." It's hard to tell whether "were" is the passive auxiliary (in which case "used" is a past participle) or whether "were" is a copula (in which case "used" is an adjective). I'd like to think it's passive."'I did not think you had been so obstinate, Catherine,' said James; 'you were not used to be so hard to persuade; you once were the kindest, best-tempered of my sisters.'"
- Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey