To settle a dispute with a chap here, please tell me which of the following sentences (if any) is correct: 1. I never used to do that. 2. I used to never do that. 3. I used never to do that. Buzzfloyd, help!
Number 1 sounds right to me as well. But I was told once by a German lady to speak correct Queens English as she couldnt understand a word I was saying....
Number 1 is right. Number 2 is a split infinitive ('to' calls for an infinitive form in its complement position). In Number 3 'never' occupies the position where the agent role of 'do' should be satisfied (it's complicated and involves binary tree diagrams). I love syntax.
blah, split infinitives are just fine in english. and even number three isn't that weird... i can picture myself saying any of them. but maybe i'm an alien or something...
Number 3 is plainly gibberish Number 2 is contorted but does put across the meaning Number 1 is clear and correct However - Cynical_Youth - if a split infinitive is good enough for Captains Kirk and Picard, it should be good enough for anybody!
Being more basic, and using the fundamentals of language, they are all correct in as much as we can understand what they all mean. Using contemporary grammar though, number one is the most right and number three is the most wrong.
[quote:deaad9810c="drunkymonkey"]I think the real question is: what didn't you used to do?[/quote:deaad9810c] Live responsibly! I got married last month, so everyone thinks I should be doing that now
Yes, congratulations, Sam! Number one is correct. In this sentence, 'never' needs to be applied to 'used', not to 'do'. That's why 2 and 3 don't work, although 3 is a usage you will often hear. Coppe, it's a total myth that you shouldn't split an infinitive, invented in Victorian times, and making a mess of communication if you try to apply it.
[quote:144c401eeb="Buzzfloyd"] Coppe, it's a total myth that you shouldn't split an infinitive, invented in Victorian times, and making a mess of communication if you try to apply it.[/quote:144c401eeb] I do know that. Pragmatically, there's nothing wrong with it and it even improves understanding. There are some linguistic theories, though, that seemed to suggest to me that it would not be grammatically correct. Simplified, it says 'to' calls for an infinitive to occur after it. I confused myself in that I didn't realise that it only calls for an infinitive phrase. 'Never' would simply be the adjective branch of the 'do' infinitival phrase in parsing and would still satisfy 'to''s criterion. In other words, 2 would be correct too, although, as Grace already pointed out, it would have a different meaning. 3 is always wrong, though.
The 'don't split infinitives' rule appeared around the same time double negatives became a no-no. In this case I'd say that 1 is prescripted grammar. (what the ûber-grammarians will tell you is right) Sentences 2 and 3 are descriptive grammar ie, what people really say. And congratulations to getting married :lol:
[quote:42a49106ce="sampanna"]To settle a dispute with a chap here, please tell me which of the following sentences (if any) is correct: 1. I never used to do that. 2. I used to never do that. 3. I used never to do that. Buzzfloyd, help![/quote:42a49106ce] Quoted again for reference here. I'm not convinced that 2 can be correct. The problem is not the syntax but the meaning of the word 'never', with its implication of permanency. If you never used to do something, then you did it at no point in the past (statement 1). But if you 'used to never do' something (statement 2), then you were in the practice of never doing it - which is impossible. You can't regularly never do something, which is the meaning of the second phrase. Statement 3 is a usage that I hear a lot, so from a descriptive point of view, it's certainly fine. But if you're looking for the technically correct one in standard English, it won't do, for the reason I gave before.
Hooray! I'm glad that the pedants are in action! It's nice to see that so many people care. :lol: [size=12:7f4c9bbe19][/size:7f4c9bbe19]
[quote:3f74081c1c="Mynona"]The 'don't split infinitives' rule appeared around the same time double negatives became a no-no. :[/quote:3f74081c1c] Split infinitives - fine - English is a language in which you [i:3f74081c1c]can[/i:3f74081c1c]split them - many other languages don't add the "to" or equivalent in front of the verb so there is nowhere to put the adverb. [quote:3f74081c1c="Mynona"]In this case I'd say that 1 is prescripted grammar. (what the ûber-grammarians will tell you is right) Sentences 2 and 3 are descriptive grammar ie, what people really say. [/quote:3f74081c1c] Just because it is "what people really say" does not make it right - language is for communication - and how can we communicate properly if we are not using our language according to the same rules?
I think number 1 is right too. This chap I know insisted that number 3 is correct. Apparently his French teacher told him that this is a common mistake Indians make while speaking English.
[quote:d06e9a21f6="Buzzfloyd"][quote:d06e9a21f6="sampanna"]To settle a dispute with a chap here, please tell me which of the following sentences (if any) is correct: 1. I never used to do that. 2. I used to never do that. 3. I used never to do that. Buzzfloyd, help![/quote:d06e9a21f6] Quoted again for reference here. I'm not convinced that 2 can be correct. The problem is not the syntax but the meaning of the word 'never', with its implication of permanency. .[/quote:d06e9a21f6] Depends on context and the impression you are trying to convey. "I used to never drink alcohol" doesn't mean the same thing as "I never used to drink alcohol." The first emphasises that drinking alcohol is something you do now (the "used to" comes first). The second emphasises how opposed you were to drinking alcohol (the "never" comes first.) Never means permanency in all of the examples, it's implied that you really mean "not until now" when you say never for all three examples.
I see the point you're making, Marcia, but it still wouldn't be correct. The deliberate misusage could indeed imply the meaning you suggest (although I'd argue that it's not clear enough), but the grammar would still be shot. It would be better to say "I used to avoid alcohol" or similar. 'Never' does indeed imply permanency in any context - which is why it's a problem in statement 2. Statements 1 and 3 suggest that the condition was permanent until now, a relaxation of the term that is allowed by consensus over meaning. But statement 2 says that the condition was repeatedly permanent, which is a nonsense, as [i:1f58a1e086]well[/i:1f58a1e086] as being syntactically incorrect!
[quote:aa31b3f5e0="sampanna"]I think number 1 is right too. This chap I know insisted that number 3 is correct. Apparently his French teacher told him that this is a common mistake Indians make while speaking English.[/quote:aa31b3f5e0] And why would we trust the French to speak english properly?
[quote:080abe2710="spiky"][quote:080abe2710="sampanna"]I think number 1 is right too. This chap I know insisted that number 3 is correct. Apparently his French teacher told him that this is a common mistake Indians make while speaking English.[/quote:080abe2710] And why would we trust the French to speak english properly?[/quote:080abe2710] Somehow, I knew I would hear this
Just because it is "what people really say" does not make it right - language is for communication - and how can we communicate properly if we are not using our language according to the same rules?[/quote] because languages are living. They change all the time in their native languages and then we, as L2 or EFL'ers has to go with the flow. And for great changes I have only one thing to say, GVS (the Great Vovel Shift)
[quote:a11d4f0560="Buzzfloyd"]I see the point you're making, Marcia, but it still wouldn't be correct. The deliberate misusage could indeed imply the meaning you suggest (although I'd argue that it's not clear enough), but the grammar would still be shot.[/quote:a11d4f0560] The whole point of grammar is to get your meaning, and all the nuances you wish to convey, across as accurately as possible. If breaking the rules means you can express yourself more clearly, than the rules should be broken.
Yeah, but in this specific case, breaking the rules doesn't make the point of the sentence easier to understand. And congrats Sampanna!!
I don't think Marcia means number 2 (?) is easier to understand than the other two sentences, just that being grammatically correct isn't always the best way to be understood.
Mini-hijack again .. thanks everyone! Incidentally, what happened to the website Buzzfloyd was working on? The one that teaches English to non-native speakers? Is that still under construction or did I miss any post about that?
It's opening soon. I'll be posting about it in the next week or so. Marcia, I agree with the point about communicating meaning - I just don't agree that statement 2 does communicate meaning clearly enough to warrant using it. But that's just a matter of opinion. Also, Sam was asking which sentence was grammatically correct rather that communicative.
[quote:a6e1e66ec3="Mynona"] [quote:a6e1e66ec3="Pixel"]Just because it is "what people really say" does not make it right - language is for communication - and how can we communicate properly if we are not using our language according to the same rules?[/quote:a6e1e66ec3] because languages are living. They change all the time in their native languages and then we, as L2 or EFL'ers has to go with the flow. And for great changes I have only one thing to say, GVS (the Great Vovel Shift)[/quote:a6e1e66ec3] Living languages are fine when they are incorporating new words but when words change their meaning and punctuation and grammar becomes optional, how can people communicate? Maybe it's because I am a computer programmer that I am sensitive to this - if I put a plus in a program, that's what I expect to happen, not a minus. The Marthter gave examples in Lords and Ladies - one of which effectively asks "How did "Bad" come to mean "Good"?" For punctuation, think of the following two versions of the same words but with different punctuation: "King Charles walked and talked half an hour after his head was cut off" "King Charles walked and talked. Half an hour after, his head was cut off" Two totally different meanings. Communication between people can be difficult enough - why confuse the issue by continously changing the rules?
Words [i:ee82451fda]do[/i:ee82451fda] change their meaning all the time though. Well not ALL the time, that would be silly, but it does happen over time that a word's meaning will completely change. I don't just mean things like 'Wicked' and 'Cool', though they are examples; look at the history of 'Nice' or 'Hallucinate'. And it's become acceptable in literature to start a sentence with and.
I agree with Mal about the change in meaning of words. This is a natural progression. Grammar rules, however, have stayed pretty steady over the last several hundred years, and it is worth at least being aware of what they are. Without grammar, we can't communicate. The reason statement number 2 worked at all was because it more or less followed correct grammar - indeed, using different words would have made that syntax correct eg "I used to avoid doing that" (note the change in morphology of 'to do' though). We can't say "That to never I do used" because it makes no sense at all - that's why grammar is important, although 'close enough' still gets the job done.
[quote:02cbc7298b="Maljonic"]I don't think Marcia means number 2 (?) is easier to understand than the other two sentences, just that being grammatically correct isn't always the best way to be understood.[/quote:02cbc7298b] Ah, my bad. Apologies. Marcia is in that case obviously correct.
Being of Ashkenazi Jewish extraction (I grew up hearing Yiddish spoken) I have a tendency to rearrange the order of words in sentences so that the "important" words are moved to the front. (I think Maljonic once said I talk like Yoda.) Personally, I think my way of speaking provides for better communication. For example: Normal English: I'll meet you at 10:00. Marcia's Yinglish: At 10:00 I'll meet you. I wonder if Hsing does the same thing (Yiddish and German are very close.) Although she probably doesn't if her English knowledge comes from book learning, and she was formally taught rules of English grammar, rather than from growing up in a bilingual household.
Hm.. I am not quite aware of my grammatical proceedings, or the results would be more... English. So I can't even really tell. Most of my knowledge of the English language derives from reading books and the internet. I think I might have a tendency to put the noun in as early as possible and then describe what is happening from, to, or with it (nouns, adjectives, verbs, in that order), and that might be German, in a way. I also suppose if I managed to put in the important bitof the sentence in earlier, I would manage to produce shorter, less winded sentences...
having talked to Hsing as we say in person, in the flesh, or face to face, I didn't notice any odd grammatical phrasing on her part when it comes to spoken english... Hell she probably speaks better enlish than I do because she hasn't had decades of bad habits, colloquialisms or idiosyncratic jargonisms to screw her up
You understood what I was trying to say? Wow. I remember myself as completely unable to switch to spoken English - I have no training at all.
yes but it was a tag team effort with cat if either of you couldn'y remember a word... the moral is always have a fall back position and someone to ask.
I thought #1 was more correct, and the way I'd say it, but that if some one was trying to sound British they might go for version#3. Congratulations on your marriage, Sampanna! I hope you have many happy years together.
[quote:2ac465d3e6="TamyraMcG"]I thought #1 was more correct, and the way I'd say it, but that if some one was trying to sound British they might go for version#3. Congratulations on your marriage, Sampanna! I hope you have many happy years together.[/quote:2ac465d3e6]Now that's wierd, because when [i:2ac465d3e6]I[/i:2ac465d3e6] first read number 3 I thought it sounded like the sort of thing an American might say.
Same here! It doesn't sound British at all to me. Marcia, I'm interested by the different way speaking Yiddish affects how you perceive grammar. To my mind, changing the standard syntax would always make what you're saying less clear, even if you are moving the important word to the front. Although 'Grace my name is' might still be intelligible, 'My name is Grace' is the correct syntax and seems clearer to me. However, I can see how it would be different if your brain had developed the wiring for a different structure.
