Used to /would enjoy

Discussion in 'Spanish-English Grammar / Gramática Español-Inglés' started by dudass, Sep 27, 2013.

  1. dudass Senior Member

    spanish
    "Did you use to enjoy family days out?" Is it possible to replace "used to" with "would" in this sentence and say "Would you enjoy family days out?"

    If not, Why not?

    Thank you very much.
     
  2. rsanchez Junior Member

    Argentinean Spanish
    Le estarías cambiando el sentido a la frase. La primera pregunta si los disfrutabas (los que tuviste en otro tiempo), la segunda pregunta si los disfrutarías (los que te podrían dar en el futuro).
     
  3. dudass Senior Member

    spanish
    Ok. I will put the same doubt this way:

    I used to enjoy family days out when we lived in the south.

    I would enjoy family days when we lived in the south.

    Are both sentences correct?
     
  4. chamyto

    chamyto Senior Member

    Burgos, Spain
    Spanish
    Sí, puesto que "would" en muchos contextos también significa solía (used to) .
     
  5. JennyTW Senior Member

    Córdoba, Spain
    English - UK
    Le estarías cambiando el sentido a la frase. La primera pregunta si los disfrutabas (los que tuviste en otro tiempo), la segunda pregunta si los disfrutarías (los que te podrían dar en el futuro).

    No necesariamente. "Would" también se usa como sinónimo de "used to", pero.....



    Publicado por dudass
    Ok. I will put the same doubt this way:


    I used to enjoy family days out when we lived in the south.


    I would enjoy family days when we lived in the south.


    Are both sentences correct?
    Sí, puesto que "would" en muchos contextos también significa solía (used to) .

    No. No es correcto porque, mientras que "used to" se puede usar con cualquier verbo, "would" (como "solía") no se puede usar con verbos de estado (be, live, enjoy etc) sólo con verbos de acción -" we would go to the beach and we would swim all day".
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2013
  6. Wandering JJ

    Wandering JJ Senior Member

    England
    British English
  7. inglesapoyosj Junior Member

    Everywhere & Nowhere
    Español Rioplatense / English
    I agree with JennyTW. In case you want to replace the "use(d) to" with "would", you need an action verb, a verb that implies a process of doing something.

    For example: We would be at the beach hours and hours, every day, every summer.

    I would rather choose to say:

    We would spend hours and hours at the beach, every day, every summer.

    PD: The would is used to say that something was done so frequently or passionately, that you would even keep doing it on and on. The would implies a "future" that never happened, but it could have easily continued to occur.
     
  8. Giorgio Spizzi Senior Member

    Italian
    Hola, dudass.

    You wrote "Did you use to enjoy family days out?" Is it possible to replace "used to" with "would" in this sentence and say "Would you enjoy family days out?"

    but you did not use "used to" in the first sentence. If you had, you'd have written "Used you to enjoy ...", which is perfectly grammatical.

    GS .)
     
  9. inglesapoyosj Junior Member

    Everywhere & Nowhere
    Español Rioplatense / English
    Giorgio Spizzi:

    By writting "Used to enjoy..." you are suggesting that "use to" be used as a modal or auxiliary verb, aren't you?
     
  10. JennyTW Senior Member

    Córdoba, Spain
    English - UK
    I'm afraid "Used you to enjoy..." is not correct.
     
  11. FromPA

    FromPA Senior Member

    Philadelphia area
    USA English
    I think the use of "would" to mean "used to" requires you to reference some past time in order to be clear, otherwise it sounds like the conditional. That's why the sentence sounds much better when you add "when you lived in the South." I would also add that this use of "would" is not used much in conversational American English.
     
  12. Giorgio Spizzi Senior Member

    Italian
    I beg to disagree, Jenny. "Used you to enjoy ... " is perfectly grammatical, if a little formal, especially in British English.

    GS :)
     
  13. FromPA

    FromPA Senior Member

    Philadelphia area
    USA English
    It may be grammatical, but I can't imagine anyone actually saying it, at least not over here.
     
  14. juan2937 Senior Member

    Spanish
    Jenny TW I wonder about the verb 'enjoy' being a state verb, I think it is a action verb. ( Azar's grammar book don't list it as stative verb)

    I used to enjoy family days out when we lived in the south. (habitual past)
    I would enjoy family days out when we lived in the south.( habitual past)
    My father would read me a story at night before bed when I was a child (habitual past)
    My father used to read me a story at night before bed when I was a child (habitual past)

    STATE verbs :
    I used to be a Boyscout
    I used to have a ford
    I used to live in California
    I used to hate pancakes
     
  15. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    Yes, in the right context it is possible. And, depending on context, there may be different nuances.
    Yes, they are correct. The when clause helps, but the second sentence still might be a conditional.
    People on WR have said that "I'm lovin' it" makes sense if we assume "lovin'" means "enjoying" because "enjoy" is less stative than some of the meanings of "love".

    Fact is, all of these verbs can be used with would to indicate customary past, given the right context:

    He made a habit of tying his sister's shoes together while she was sleeping. Sometimes he would be nice and tell her about it, but that did nothing towards keeping her from feeling lower in the pecking order.
    She would have a fit every time she found her shoes tied together.
    We used to live in Florida for January and February, but then we would live in New York for the rest of the year. I would always enjoy family days out when we lived in the South.
    She used to love sleeping on the couch in the living room, but she would hate it when she woke up with her shoes tied together.
     
  16. inglesapoyosj Junior Member

    Everywhere & Nowhere
    Español Rioplatense / English
    Doing some little research through important web dictionaries, I actually found out that "used to" is a modal verb. I didn't know it, I mean, I've always used the "used to", but had never thought of it as a modal verb.
     
  17. Giorgio Spizzi Senior Member

    Italian
    Well, inglesa, not exactly a modal verb (or auxiliary), in fact. The presence of TO makes it extraordinarily similar to "have to", which is not a modal auxiliary.

    GS :)
     
  18. inglesapoyosj Junior Member

    Everywhere & Nowhere
    Español Rioplatense / English
  19. JennyTW Senior Member

    Córdoba, Spain
    English - UK
    It all depends on your definition of "modal verb". For me, "ought to" is a semi-modal ( it takes a direct negative etc, but it is followed by "to") And "have to" and "used to" are not modals (they conjugate normally and are followed by "to"), although they share characteristics of meaning with them.

    It just goes to show that it's all a question of opinion, as can be seen by the cited dictionaries.
     
  20. Giorgio Spizzi Senior Member

    Italian
    Absolutely true, Jenny.

    To show how dangerously rigid and narrow-minded the authors of grammar-books and other reference works can be, there's the interesting case of the forms am to, is to, are to, was to, were to, which—although they share semantic features with the modals auxiliaries, be they "complete" or "semi"—are never mentioned in the treatment of either category. They usually appear, though, in a separate chapter entitled "To BE TO". Needless to remind our readers that, unlike the finite forms cited above—the (infinitive?) to be to does not exist in English.

    GS :)
     
  21. juan2937 Senior Member

    Spanish
    I agree with your statement' To be to' but ' be to+infinitive is correct'
    No one is to leave this building
    The prime Minister is to visit Budapest.
     
  22. JennyTW Senior Member

    Córdoba, Spain
    English - UK
    Did anyone ever say it wasn't correct?
     
  23. Giorgio Spizzi Senior Member

    Italian
    Exactly. :)

    GS
     
  24. juan2937 Senior Member

    Spanish
    Sorry, that post was for Giorgi Spizzi. Today, 7:46 AM #23
    Giorgio Spizzi
    [​IMG] Senior Member


    Join DateJan 2010
    Native languageItalian
    Posts9,194



    Exactly. :)
     
  25. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    Am to, is to, are to, was to, and were to + infinitive are correct, but not be to, being to, or been to.
     
  26. Giorgio Spizzi Senior Member

    Italian
    Hola, Juan.
    I don't seem to understand your post #24 but if you read my post #20 you'll see that I wrote:
    Needless to remind our readers that, unlike the
    finite forms cited above—the (infinitive?) to be to does not exist in English.
    I never said that forms such as is to, am to, etc. cannot be followed by the infinitive of another verb.
    And Jenny and Forero agree with me. The latter usefully added two more non-finite forms of verbs which do not exist: the gerund/present participle and the past participle.

    GS :)
     
  27. juan2937 Senior Member

    Spanish
    I agreed with you that To be to is not registered in English language, but be to yes, sorry if it makes you feel uneasy.
     
  28. Giorgio Spizzi Senior Member

    Italian
    Hullo, Juan.

    I agreed with you that To be to is not registered in English language, but be to yes, sorry if it makes you feel uneasy.

    I'm perfectly at ease, thank you :)

    You can't find a sentence where the words be to are employed, and this is enough to make me state that be to does not exist in English.
    Your own example sentences do not contain be to. What they do contain are conjugated (finite) forms of be followed by to. But that's different.
    A brief comparison with, say, have to, might be instructive: You can have sentences with the infinitive "have to" (e.g. "I don't want to have to deal with them"), but you can't say "*I am sorry to be to go to Australia". All you can say is perhaps "I am to go to Australia and I'm sorry about that".

    Best.

    GS
     
  29. juan2937 Senior Member

    Spanish

    This heading of 'be to' is written down at AZAR's grammar book, Chapter 2 Modal auxiliaries and similar expressions, page 68.
    Be to is a strong expectation or an official arragement.
    I am to be at the meeting. My boss ordered me to be there.
    Oxford Guide To English grammar Nº 76 Be to :
    The prime minister is to visit Budapest next week
    The two leaders are to meet for talks on a number of issues

    NOTE: In headlines 'be' can be dropped (newspaper)
    Prime minister to visit Budapest.
     
  30. Giorgio Spizzi Senior Member

    Italian
    Hullo, Juan.

    This heading of 'be to' is written down at AZAR's grammar book, Chapter 2 Modal auxiliaries and similar expressions, page 68.

    That grammar book, like many others, writes "BE TO" because it's shorter than "am to, is to, are to, was to, were to" but this is not correct: their readers may be induced to think that the words BE TO can be found in an English sentence.

    Be to is a strong expectation or an official arrangement.
    Yes, if we refer to the finite forms that I wrote above

    I am to be at the meeting. My boss ordered me to be there.
    Maybe you should have written I am to be at the meeting. As you see, the sentence contains a conjugated for of BE (am)

    Oxford Guide To English grammar Nº 76 Be to :
    The prime minister is to visit Budapest next week
    The two leaders are to meet for talks on a number of issues

    Very well, but here too the sentences do not contain the words BE TO. They contain IS and ARE (conjugated forms of BE)

    NOTE: In headlines 'be' can be dropped (newspaper)
    Prime minister to visit Budapest.

    Mind you: What is dropped is not BE but the conjugated form IS (or WAS)

    I'm afraid this will be my last post on the subject :)

    GS
     
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2013
  31. juan2937 Senior Member

    Spanish
    Be to is a bare infinitive as any modal verb I could go, I might go. I think as title, that is all over my grammar books from England and USA the headings are 'be to'

    Would it be a long list to put all the conjugated forms under a heading ?

    Have a plesant evening and I agree with you about the posting.
     

Share This Page