Somebody is murdering grammar

[DocHeart]

Active Grammar 2 by Cambridge University Press (a grammar textbook designed for learners of English as a second language) contains what seems to be an awful mistake. It states that it is correct to say "I didn't used to like bananas, but now I do."

A friend who's an English teacher was discussing this with some of his colleagues on Facebook. Some commented that this is extremely ungrammatical. I commented that it physically hurts my eyes. But then someone provided this link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv285.shtml

For those of you who cannot be bothered with clicking, here's the extract that makes me think that there is a British-led conspiracy to murder the correct use of auxiliaries:

==============================================

used to: questions and negative forms

Used to is used to describe past habits or long-lasting actions and situations which are now finished

People used to think the sun revolved around the earth.

I used to take size 12, but now I take size 14.

For questions and negative forms, two forms of the verb are used - either the normal infinitive pattern after did (more common), or the past form used (less common):

When you were a kid, did you use to think the sun revolved around the earth?

When you were a kid, did you used to think the sun revolved around the earth?

I didn't use to take such a large dress size, but now I do.

I didn't used to take such a large dress size, but now I do.

In a more formal style, questions and negatives are possible without do, following the pattern of a modal auxiliary verb, although these forms are less often used:

I used not to like contemporary dance, but now I do.

Used you to play the organ in church before you became a monk?


==============================================


The last example, of course, adds insult to injury. "Used you to play the organ in church before you became a monk?" What?! Who asks these things? What happened to teaching through everyday language? And what with the "Used you" form -- that's another eyesore.

Ugly, but certainly not as ungrammatical as "I didn't used to..." or "Did you used to...?"

What do you guys think? Does this usage of "did" together with the past tense of a verb sound in any way correct you you? Or is this another case of a mistake being made so often and by so many people that it actually stops being a mistake?

Whatever the case, I didn't use to think "I didn't used to think" is correct, and I see no reason to change that now.

Looking forward to your input.

Regards,
DH

[Sancho]

I’m with ya , Doc. Somebody is slaughtering the grammar. It sounds awkward to my ear. It’s probably okay in informal conversation, and all run together: useta.

My little nephew useta like the word: lookit.

“Hey, Uncle Sancho, lookit this."

“You know, dude, lookit is not a real word.”

“Sure it is. It’s like when I say, ‘Hey, Uncle Sancho, lookit this.'”

[Emil Miller]

Slaughtering the grammar is a pretty good description of what is happening and has been ongoing for some time. The problem is that when someone mentions it they are accused of being pedantic and refusing to pander to the zeitgeist of the 'dumbing down' of received wisdom.
Two particular examples of misuse that I find irritating are the words ''anyways' and 'gotten' which should be rendered as 'anyway' and 'got' or more accurately 'become'. 'Anyways' is pluralising the word 'way' so that 'any', which automatically implies plurality should not be followed by 'ways' which also implies the plural.
'Gotten' is archaic and has long ceased to be used in standard English even though it remains as an American usage retained from colonial days.

In fact I'm a bit fed up with seeing 'gotten', but I've got used to it on the forum and it doesn't make great deal of difference anyway.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I like "gotten." It sounds much more correct to my ears to say, "I've gotten used to it," rather than, "I've got used to it."

As to the OP, that's ridiculous. How is that coming out of a British college? And here we are in America, acting like you Brits are the authority on the language. If Oxford ever screws up like this, we know the language is truly doomed.

[Calidore]

To grammar's house we go...

Regarding "gotten", I agree with Mutatis. Regarding "didn't used to", for all the complaints, nobody's yet posted an authority of Cambridge's level debunking it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I'm no grammarian, so I don't have the ability to debunk a postulate that was probably compiled by several people, for whatever reason. Even the description itself admits using "used" the way they do is uncommon.

Still, I don't think anyone here carried the level of authority as Cambridge. I also don't really see them justifying why this is okay--they kind of just said, "Oh yeah, teach can say it this way, too, because some people say it like that," as if that's a justification.

[DocHeart]

Thanks, everyone. In the light of the fact that a book by a highly reputable publisher (Cambridge) claims that "didn't used to" and "did you used to?" are not incorrect, I'm interested to know this:

If you were marking a piece of writing by a student/pupil and you came across "didn't used to" or "did you used to?", would you mark it as incorrect? If yes, what would you respond to a student who asks: "Why did you mark this as incorrect, sir/miss? The book says it's okay!"

Regards,
DH

[Revolte]

Hmmm.

But grammar isn't permanent in terms of correct usage. So it's only natural that it would change over time.

I don't think it's any more of a slaughter then how we no longer say nor write "Thee" and other words like that.

And sense we created words in the first place, I think we have every right to modify them to our liking. Right? They aren't universal laws. If anything they are temporary definitions and contexts.

[billl]

If you were marking a piece of writing by a student/pupil and you came across "didn't used to" or "did you used to?", would you mark it as incorrect? If yes, what would you respond to a student who asks: "Why did you mark this as incorrect, sir/miss? The book says it's okay!"


I was at one time in a situation where I was teaching and grading students according to the standard that the OP is accustomed to (i.e. if "did" is in there, "used" shouldn't be). Later, I was teaching in a situation in which both ways were described (in standardized teacher's notes) as being OK. So I told (taught) those students that the "old" way was what I was most comfortable with, but that both were OK. I didn't bother them with it too much, though. I tried to treat it as a goofy situation, and made it clear I thought it was kind of a minor mess (from my perspective as a teacher teaching this particular point to students). I emphasized that some people might get into arguments about it, and some future teachers might tell them differently, and I had my preference--but it's not really a big deal.

Bottom line, it's not going back to being incorrect with anything approaching unanimity among "grammarians". I'm all for fighting for what's better (and this did use to make more sense, the inflexible way that the OP and I were used to it being before), but this ship is pretty much sunk. I would (as I have) let the students know that they could be innocent casualties of this battle if they aren't careful, are unlucky, and run into someone with particular old-school ideas about it--but I'm not going to be one of the people targeting them over it.

[kiki1982]

Well, my husband (English teacher s a foreig language) offered that in the Cambridge it could be a spelling mistake. When I said it was mentioned on the BBC, he said it was used, yes...

I think there is a difference between it being used and taught to foreign students.

To me, teachers in the UK and people who write these books have lost all sense of English leniency (everythig goes, as long as we understand you and it makes a little sense; why not invent another word for chair despite having two already, because you have been in India?) and have moved on to sheer lunacy.

There is a difference between accepting words and expressions from other languages and starting to use faulty grammar.
As they don't teach people proper grammar anymore, they start to use faulty grammar in formal situations. 'You is', however, has been in Southern English (or is it Cockney alone?) for quite a while, I believe. Still, we do not teach it to foreigners.

The problem with this kind of leniency is that foreigners can no longer find any logic, because there is none. You move to a medieval kind of structure again where in the North they say it in this way, and in the South in that one and somewhere else totally different. In the end, you'll have as many ways of saying things as there are people. You need to have some structure.
There is a boundary between everyday speak and dialect, and formal English you teach. There is nothing wrong with writing 'I did not used to think' in an email to a friend or on Facebook if you feel like it, but don't bother people who do know grammar with it as they find it profoundly illogical.

The gotten-thing is American and over the Atlantic people don't use it as they have moved on from those archaic times. I don't think a British teacher should teach it to his students, but an American could. That's why in the European Institutions' courses they regularly rotate teachers from different countries.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Thanks, everyone. In the light of the fact that a book by a highly reputable publisher (Cambridge) claims that "didn't used to" and "did you used to?" are not incorrect, I'm interested to know this:

If you were marking a piece of writing by a student/pupil and you came across "didn't used to" or "did you used to?", would you mark it as incorrect? If yes, what would you respond to a student who asks: "Why did you mark this as incorrect, sir/miss? The book says it's okay!"

Regards,
DH

Well, it depends. If my class is using the book that says its okay, no, even I'd I do make it clear it's a rule I disagree with--I'm not marking my students off for following their books. If we're not using that book, then yes. It'd just be more pointing out the error, though; I doubt I'd actually mark off points.

[jajdude]

I'd let it slide, the use and used, I guess. But I'll be damned if I accept that a dog wags "it's" tail. This is the greatest crime ever!

Somebody is murdering the apostrophe and many others decided to jump on that wagon.

[Hawkman]

There are always instances of correct grammar being unwiledy or ineligant. When in doubt, rephrase to avoid the dilemma. I personally find "he didn't used to" ghastly. "he used not to" would be how I'd write it, but if one were writing a piece of dialogue for a street urchin I think "He didn't used to" would be appropriate. :D