0

Ok, This site says

We use would to refer to typical habitual actions and events in the past. This is usually a formal use and it often occurs in stories (narratives):

I had a friend from Albany, which is about 36 miles away, and we would meet every Thursday morning and she would help us.

Then he would wash; then he would eat his toast; then he would read his paper by the bright burning fire of electric coals.

However, it also says:

We can’t use would in this way to talk about states. In these cases, we say used to instead of would:

I used to live in Melbourne when I was a kid.

Not: I would live in Melbourne when I was a kid.

So, what does "to talk about states" mean?

  • When they say "talk about states" I think they mean states of being, and I think you may be confusing that with "states" as in "geographical divisions". – stangdon Feb 8 '17 at 0:29
1

In this context, a state is a sitution that exists without change for a period of time. If you live in New York, that's a state. If you visit New York regularly, that's not a state: it's a series of separate events which you could describe as a habitual action.

I used to live in New York - state
I used to visit New York regularly - habitual action
I would visit New York regularly - habitual action

As you can see, used to can be used about both states and habitual actions, but would can only be used about habitual actions.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.