Timeline for "Didn't use to get" or "Didn't used to get"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Aug 18, 2016 at 16:37 | history | edited | FumbleFingers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 976 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2016 at 15:00 | history | edited | FumbleFingers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 384 characters in body
|
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:56 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @JavaLatte: This NGram strongly suggests there was never a time in the past when people significantly preferred used not to like over did not use/used to like. We're only talking here about the spelling of the latter option. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:50 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @cupercat: I find it impossible to believe that any native speaker (who could actually read) could have any problem understanding I did used/use to like John, but not any more regardless of the orthography. A few might have strong opinions on how it should be written, but as John Lawler points out in an ELU answer both look bad, the first because used looks like a misspelled infinitive,and the second because use to doesn't look like it sounds like used to should. This should be considered a bug in the orthographic system. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 14:33 | comment | added | supercat | @FumbleFingers: If typical readers shown two sentences would routinely understand the first at first glance, and would stumble on the second, I would suggest that's a sign that the first is, if anything, superior to the second. Having the spelling of "yoosta" change based upon tense when the pronunciation doesn't, may make it more "grammatically correct", but it would also make it more likely to require readers to mis-parse the sentence on their first pass. | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 11:55 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | @JavaLatte: I specifically pointed out that the distinction is completely inaudible in normal speech, so we're only talking about the orthography here. And if grammarians bang on about how it should be written, obviously they would all endorse the "logical" principle (besides which, grammarians also always endorse historically-established usage over emerging variations). The rise must be caused by what "ordinary people" write, in spite of grammarians. | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 18:55 | comment | added | JavaLatte | Bear in mind that NGram reflects written usages. In the past, people would say didn't use(d) to but would write used not to. The rise shown from the 1970s onwards may simply reflect the rise in usage of informal expressions in writing. Or maybe the rise is caused by the plethora of grammarians banging on about this issue... | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 18:49 | comment | added | P. E. Dant Reinstate Monica | I thought the string "did not use to" might appear in many sentences without the meaning of "didn't use(d) to." Another ngram with apostrophes in place—based on the technique Mark Liberman employed to quash "nor'easter"—is here. It gives a similar result, though. Also, I am all in favor of your new icon. | |
| Aug 16, 2016 at 15:31 | history | answered | FumbleFingers | CC BY-SA 3.0 |