EN: would <verb> / used to <verb> - past habit

[Agnès E.]

Bonjour !

Our friend E-J has raised an utterly interesting question in this post. I fully agree with her that this might be the object of a whole thread, as this question often wanders through my brain (each time I meet would used in a past tense, i.e. almost every day! ).

I know about the similar sense of used to.
But sometimes it appears that would might be chosen for some other reasons, which mysterious nuances I am unable to decipher.

Would you please help me?

Moderator note: Multiple threads merged to create this one. If you are interested in the way to render these expressions into French, see FR: would, used to - imparfait ou conditionnel pour une habitude ?

 

[E-J]

Hello Agnès

Both 'used to' and 'would' can be used to talk about habitual actions in the past, and 'used to' is certainly more useful for learners to acquire first.

We tend to use 'would' especially when reminiscing about the past, telling a story or recollecting some regular or repeated thing we did long ago.

"When I was a child, we would visit my grandmother every Sunday afternoon. I would sit on my grandmother's knee and she'd sing me a song."

'Would' is more restricted in use than 'used to'. You could happily replace 'would' with 'used to' in the above paragraph, because the verbs (go, climb, sing) are referring to actions or habits. To describe past states, 'would' sounds very wrong. Instead, say 'used to':

"I used to live alone. I used to own a dog. I used to take him for walks in the park."

"I would live alone. I would own a dog. I would take him for walks in the park."

(Note that these sentences are all perfectly good English, but not in this context. You might very well say "If I had a bigger house, I would own a dog" but the meaning is a conditional, and we're not talking in the conditional here, but about things that happened in the past.)

Does this help? I'm tempted at this point to suggest it should be moved to the English Only forum! But perhaps we can find equivalent usages in French to illustrate these examples.

 

[pieanne]

En français, l'imparfait est utilisé pour traduire les deux, "would" et "used to". Cependant, pour rendre "used to", on ajoute par exemple "avant", "il y a longtemps", et cela implique un contraste avec le présent, que l'on ne fait plus l'action dont on parle.

"Je me rappelle, quand je vivais à la côte, nous allions à la plage tous les week-ends" = we would go to the beach...

"Avant, on mangeait du poulet tous les dimanches" = we used to have chicken ...

 

[Astartee]

"Avant, on mangeait du poulet tous les dimanches" = we used to have chicken ...

mais "avant" est une préposition, qui ne peut être utilisée seule comme un adverbe !
(on utilise souvent "avant" comme adverbe dans le langage parlé, mais c'est incorrect)

dire plutôt : "auparavant", "autrefois"...

 

[pieanne]

J'ai vu que "avant" pouvait être adverbe de temps.

 

[Welshie]

Agnès, it may be helpful to think of the sentence like this:

[if we were still living in that time] we would go for walks, we would keep sheep, we would pay the bills without worry, we would fish in the rivers....

It is my belief that that is the reason why...

Although you can do it with pretty much any verb reminiscing in the past in that manner, it does sound stranger with some than with others.

 

[pieanne]

When you use "would" in that way, do you feel it has anything to do with conditional?

 

[E-J]

Agnès, it may be helpful to think of the sentence like this:

[if we were still living in that time] we would go for walks, we would keep sheep, we would pay the bills without worry, we would fish in the rivers....

It is my belief that that is the reason why...

Hello Welshie

It's a nice theory, but I'm not convinced by it That's because the verbs which are unacceptable in the past use of 'would' are perfectly ok when you're using it as a conditional. Compare:

Conditional: If we were living in Victorian times, we would live in a bigger house.
Past: When I was a child, I would live in a bigger house.

 

[Welshie]

EJ - no I'm not entirely convinced by it either

Conditional: If we were living in Victorian times, we would live in a bigger house.
Past: When I was a child, I would live in a bigger house.

I agree there are a lot of circumstances when it sounds strange. It especially sounds strange when it's not using "we". However, I don't think you can say the second statement is straight out wrong. It does sound strange, especially since the "bigger house" really needs to be linked to something: a bigger house that what?, in order to make the link with the present.

Consider the difference:

When we were children, we would live in a grand old mansion... D)
When I was a child, I would live in a grand old mansion (Hmmmms.)
When I was a child, I would live in a bigger house. (ergh)

You can make it work with "to live", just sometimes it sounds strange.

Curious.

 

[E-J]

Hi again Welshie

I disagree completely!

When we were children, we would live in a grand old mansion... D)
When I was a child, I would live in a grand old mansion (Hmmmms.)
When I was a child, I would live in a bigger house. (ergh)

I think these are all incorrect, and I maintain that it's the verb which makes them so. Of course if you're using a comparative such as 'bigger' there's usually more context, but I don't believe the absence of it affects the acceptability of 'would' in the past here, nor do I believe it has anything to do with the personal pronoun you're using!

 

[MelB]

I think in reminiscing in English, and using "would," it sometimes adds an emotional content, that simply keeping the discussion in the past does not. In oral conversation, one sees, sometimes, the eyes of the "teller" light up, their mouth break into a smile , when he or she shifts from past tense, to the use of "would" to describe habitual actions in the past. For example, when I was a child, we went to the circus a lot. We liked to watch the clowns, why we enjoyed them so much, we would go every day as long as the circus was was in town. Would imitate them, toss balls, try to be jugglers . . .

I don't think, "When I was a child, we would live in a bigger house" is necessarily wrong???? Everything is context here. Bigger than what? Well, presumably, one would have to have established the type of house one is living in now, for the statement to make sense. For example,if one preceded the statement with: Now our living situation is constrained. We live in a one-bedroom apartment, with barely room for the four of us to breath. When I was a child, we didn't make the money we made today, but had all that we needed, would enjoy the pleasures of what was really such a nicer, bigger house because money went further then (with an extra room for books), enough to make five people happy, not four. We would light a fire in the living room fireplace, etcetera, etcetera . . .[Aside: I must admit, the word "live" grates me a little in this context, so maybe EJ is right about the verb being the problem, because I was struggling with trying to make that verb work, and had to shift to "would enjoy the pleasures . . . ]

On the statement EJ suggested was right: "If we were living in Victorian times, we would live in a bigger house, I agree with her, though "implicit in that ((because there, she's talking about a more "conditional use" of "would") wouild have to be the words (than today). That would have to be established by the context of what came before, that is the presentation/sentences (and maybe some context about Victorian houses) to make it work. I mean on this one, there's a rationality issue. Would one live in a bigger house in Victorian times? Are we talking about people in a particular income class. I'm just saying that I don't necessarily see a syntactical problem, as long as the sentence can be supported logically in its context.

 

[E-J]

Good point, MelB! I think that when we use 'would', because we tend to be reminiscing about things that happened long ago, they're also things we can't really ever hope to relive again, except by sharing our memories with others. When we say 'used to', there may be more of a chance that these are things we could do again someday - even if it's unlikely or not in our plans. So, 'would' tends to be used for recounting things that were special to us.

EDIT: I see you've considerably added to your post today, which confused me for a moment, as I wondered how I could possibly have missed all that when I replied to you yesterday! I've just seen your 'edit'. I have to say that think concerns about whether it is probable that one might be in a high enough income bracket to live in a bigger house in Victorian times is entirely irrelevant, and clouds the issue here.

 

[MelB]

Astartee suggests using "auparavant" and "autrefois" to create the idea of "would" in a past sentence. Another possibility might be, perhaps??? use of "d'habitude." Instead of saying, "j'allais au concert le samedi," (I went to the concert Saturdays) one could say, "j'avais l'habitude d'aller au concert le samedi" (which could, I suppose, translate to, "I used to [or would] go to the concert saturdays.

 

[pieanne]

I think that "j'avais l'habitude d'aller au concert le mardi" is better translated with "I was used to going to the concert on Tuesdays". It simply means that now you have new habits, maybe you go on Wednesdays.
When you say "I used to", it's not a change in your habits, it's an opposition between now and the past.
"I would go to the concert on Mondays" infers some kind of melancholy; you may still go to the concert on Mondays, but you're no longer with the same persons, the mood is different.
I agree the difference may sometimes be tenuous, it's up to the speaker/writer.

 

[MelB]

How about then, "D'habitude, j'allais au concert le samedi," as a way to approximate the English "used to" or "would" concept for the past. Couldn't that translate to: "I went or used to go to the concert Saturdays" (some time in the indefinite past, to be established by the context)? That doesn't seem to be creating any opposition to what one does in the present. In English, there's an expression: "there are many ways to skin a cat," so I'm trying to find a few here.

 

[E-J]

I think that "j'avais l'habitude d'aller au concert le mardi" is better translated with "I was used to going to the concert on Tuesdays".

I don't think so, pieanne. I would say "I used to go to concerts on Tuesdays" if I was referring to a past habit or custom of mine.

If you say, "I was used to going ..." you're not focusing on what you did, but on how you felt about it. This construction tells me that you went to concerts so often or regularly that doing so was no longer strange for you.

 

[MelB]

E-J, or anyone else (including, please, people who are French),

What do you think between these two formulations for capturing the idea, "I used to [or would] go the concert on Saturdays.

"J'avais l'habitude d'aller au concert le samedi . . .

or

"D'habitude, j'allais au concert le samedi . . .

I suggested the second formulation, only after pieanne said the first didn't work. Do you think they accomplish the same thing? Or is there a difference?

 

[river]

"Used to" is used to express an action that took place in the past, but now that action no longer customarily takes place:
-We used to take long vacation trips with the whole family.

When combined with did, the ed is dropped:
-Didn't you use to go jogging every morning?
-It didn't use to be that way.

"Used to" can convey the sense of being accustomed to or familiar with something:
-the factory stinks, but we're used to it.
-I like these shoes; I'm used to them.

"Used to" is reserved for colloquial use - not used in formal writing.

"Would" can express willingness:
-Would you please sit down?

It can express insistence:
-You've ruined everything. You would act that way.

And characteristic activity:
-customary: After work he would walk home.
-typical: She would cause the whole family to be late, every time.

It can express a hypothetical meaning:
-My dog would weigh a ton if I let her eat what she wants.

or sense of probability:
-I hear the whistle. That would be the five o'clock train.

 

[LV4-26]

1. J'avais l'habitude d'aller au concert le samedi . . .

2. D'habitude, j'allais au concert le samedi . . .

To me, I used to go to the concert on Saturdays in French would simply be
J'allais au concert le samedi.(or tous les samedi)

1. I don't think you need to add "j'avais l'habitude de" unless you want to stress that it was a habit you had. The only thing I would perhaps add would be "autrefois" (as Astartee suggested). Or "dans le temps" in a more colloquial register.

2. I wouldn't use "d'habitude," with a verb in the past. I always use it with the present tense. And I would translate it as "normally", I think.
D'habitude, je fais mes courses le samedi
I normally go shopping on Saturdays.
This is something you would say, for example, if a friend met you at the supermarket on a Friday and said "I thought you only came here on Saturdays"
- Oui. D'habitude, je fais mes courses le samedi mais demain, j'ai un rendez-vous.

 

[Kelly B]

When combined with did, the ed is dropped:
-Didn't you use to go jogging every morning?
-It didn't use to be that way.

I do not agree with this detail: I think that used to be... is correct. It is not always pronounced clearly, though.

The "would" discussion is very interesting! I do not think I would* use it in translation to replace the imperfect, and yet it would be an accurate choice in some of the cases mentioned. It has a colloquial/not-quite-right feel to me, but I'm not sure whether this is just a personal preference.

*Just the plain old conditional, here...

 

[river]

True, the "-ed" ending naturally disappears in speaking, but ought not to in writing, except when combined with "did." I'll buy you a new house if I'm wrong.

 

[MelB]

"Used to go" suggests repetitive action (similar to "would go" in English).

If you drop the "-ed," you have "did go," not "used to go." That doesn't suggest repetitve action. I don't think adding "did" and dropping the "-ed" is an adequate replacement for "used to go" for translating the imperfect into Endlish.

My 501 French Verbs treatise by Christopher Kendris suggests five ways of using the imperfect, with, as an example the French verb "lire" (to read) (in particular see (c) because the use of "would" is an acceptable translation for repetitive action in the past:

(a) Il lisait pendant que j'écrivas." He was reading while I was writing.

(b) An action that was going on in the past when another action occurred.

Il lisait quand je suis entré. He was reading when I came in.

(c) An action that a person did habitually in the past.

Nous allions à la plage tous les jours. We used to go to the beach ever day OR "We would go to the beach every day." (Notice that the treatise here for habitual actions finds acceptable the "would" translation).

(d) A description of a mental or physical condtion in the past.

(e) An action or state of being that occurred in the past and lasted for a certain length of time prior to another past action.

 

[E-J]

True, the "-ed" ending naturally disappears in speaking, but ought not to in writing, except when combined with "did." I'll buy you a new house if I'm wrong.

This is what the BBC's 'Learning English' website has to say on the spelling of 'use(d) to do':

"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.

Both, it seems, are correct.

 

[LV4-26]

"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)

No wonder it's less common. It just contradicts the basic rules of grammar.
How strange ! Well, if the BBC says so, I guess we'll just have to buy it. But it's really confusing.

 

[MelB]

I guess I missed the point of what River was saying. Still "did used to go" sounds odd/grating to me."

 

[Rodie]

Hi

I heard many times the past tense used this way:

Yesterday I clicked the button I would get an error message

instead of something more classic like:

Yesterday I clicked the button I got an error message

My question: Have the 2 sentences the same meaning? Or there is a trick with would that I did not get?

Thanks

 

[petitsfilous]

Hi!

To me, the sentences have two slightly different meanings.
Firstly, I would change the sentences a little from how you wrote them..

Yesterday, when I clicked the button, I would get an error message
or
Yesterday, I would get an error message when I clicked the button.

To me, this implies that you would get an error message when you pressed the button yesterday, but it is working OK again today.


When you don't use would...

Yesterday when I clicked the button I got an error message
or
Yesterday I got an error message when I clicked the button

This sounds like you are telling somebody that you were getting error messages yesterday but have not tried again today to see if it is working.

Hope that makes some kind of sense!!

 

[Rodie]

Hi

Indeed I forgot the word "when"... and twice !! (copy-paste...)

Interesting... I really did not know about the use of "would". I really have to think about it again to make it becomes unlearnt, fluent...

Thanks a lot

 

[Xanthius]

I’m going to disagree slightly…

Would can be used in two constructions similar to the one you’ve shown. I think the sentence you have given is wrong. (although I know people say things like that!)

1) An action that might take place = (pt + would) eg if you clicked it you would get an error message.

2) An action that might have taken place in the past = (had done + would) eg If I’d clicked it yesterday I would have got an error message

I think ‘when I clicked the button, I would get an error message’ is also wrong, as when you clicked the button (which this sentence says you did) I got an error message’ you know this because you did click the button…

(although I do agree people say I’d get)

Does that make sense? (or does anyone agree even?)

 

[judkinsc]

Aye, I believe the correct phrases would be:

1. Yesterday, if I had clicked the button, I would have had/got an error message.

2. Yesterday, I clicked the button, but I got an error message [since it wasn't working.]

Or.
1. If I clicked the button [now], I would get an error message.
2. When I clicked the button, I got an error message.

I believe the above usage of "would" is a method that native speakers sometimes employ to avoid the proper construction of conditionals. It makes sense to them, but it's not correct.

It seems to me that it's a sloppy construction.

 

[Rodie]

Let me tell you the exact sentence my american cousin wrote (I just try to remember sorry...):

... I opened the form and every time I clicked the submit button I would get an error message...

There is no conditional, she DID that for real...
So can you make your analysis again please?
Thanks

 

[judkinsc]

Alternately, conditionals are not required there.

1. When I clicked the button yesterday, I got an error message.
2. When I click it now, I get an error message.

She is trying to make it into a progressive tense. "Would", however, is not necessary there. "I was getting" is the correct past progressive.

Edit: "I got" is much better used here with "every time". See below to Xanthius' post.

 

[Xanthius]

Yes. She made a mistake. It should read:

... I opened the form and every time I clicked the submit button I got an error message...

 

[Aupick]

I think the 'would' in question is not the true conditional (as Xanthius and judkinsc suggest) but the would that's used to talk about habitual actions in the past, as in: 'When I was a kid, our family would go to Blackpool once a year and see the illuminations'. Once the 'when' is added back in, that's how I understand the sentence:

Yesterday when I clicked the button I would get an error message.
=
Yesterday each time I clicked the button I got an error message.
Yesterday I kept getting error messages whenever I clicked the button.

Personally I find this use of 'would' a little strained in this context, for something that happened as recently as yesterday, and something that was not really habitual, even if it was repetitive. But, hey, there's no accounting for taste. (And the nuances that petitsfilous mentions are really quite perceptive.)

EDIT: Yikes! When I wrote this there were only five posts in the thread. Apologies for any cross communication or changes of opinion.

 

[lyrwriter]

I think the 'would' in question is not the true conditional (as Xanthius and judkinsc suggest) but the would that's used to talk about habitual actions in the past, as in: 'When I was a kid, our family would go to Blackpool once a year and see the illuminations'.

I think you're going in the right direction. "Would", to me, makes it so the number of times this action occurred is vague instead of specific. If you take out the specific phrase "every time", then this explanation works:

"When...I clicked the submit button I would get an error message."

This seems to imply (to me) that the person clicked numerous times, or that this was something that happened repeatedly. It also makes the action vague, as opposed to:

"When...I clicked the submit button I got an error message."

This implies the event probably only took place once (i.e. the person only tried to click submit one time). It's also very concrete and specific in comparison to "would get". However, this sort of logic doesn't work with "every time" as a part of the sentence...

I wonder if that first example sentence would sound better if you used "whenever" instead of "when":

"Whenever I clicked the submit button, I would get an error message."

Hmmm...on second thought, that sounds a bit fishy. Maybe not...

D'autres idées?

 

[jimreilly]

I don't think it sound fishy at all, and it's a very common way of expressing something that happened repeatedly. We're talking about every day speech here, after all. Or perhaps every day internet communication, which is often even less formal than speech, like it or not.

 

[Thibaultm]

J'ai remarqué plusieurs fois que certains anglophones (je dirais plutot des americains) utilisaient le conditionnel pour raconter un récit au passé. "They would let us watch them" par exemple.

J'aimerais savoir si j'ai mal compris ou si c'est vraiment utilisé par certaines personnes?

Et quelles sont les nuances de cette utilisation?

 

[donques]

Would here is not used in the conditional mood. It is a quite acceptable way of expressing the imperfect tense. Same meaning as :"they used to let us watch them". It is used this way in England as in America.

 

[marget]

I agree with donques. It is used to express habitual or repeated action in this context.

 

[Kyo]

Bonjour !

juste une question de grammaire, si le "would" de l'habitude passée n'est pas au mode conditionnel, alors à quel mode est-il ? Merci !

 

[Aupick]

Indicatif ?

 

[jann]

Kyo, si je vous comprends bien, il s'agit d'une phrase comme la suivante, qui se traduit avec l'imparfait :
Every summer, they would go to the beach.
Chaque été, ils allaient à la plage.

Some grammarians might say that it is better to write, "Every summer, they used to go the beach," which is a clear example of the "habitual past tense" (indicative). By extension, I suppose that "...they would go to the beach" could also be considered as the habitual past (indicative) ... although perhaps it is indeed a perversion of the conditional. In short, for the French translation it's clear that you need the imparfait (indicatif) but I'm not sure how to classify the English construction...

 

[xtrasystole]

Just to extend the discussion a bit, it seems to me that the form 'used to' points to a more systematic repetition than the form 'would'.

Am I right?

If so, the sentence 'He used to smoke a packet a day' would seem more appropriate to its own meaning than 'He would smoke a packet a day'.

What do you think native English-speakers?

 

[juliobenjimino]

I'm not sure, but 'would' seems slightly more well-spoken or literary than 'used to'... if I was talking to a member of the aristocracy or something, my subconscious would automatically supply the word 'would' rather than 'used to'....

eg And of course, your grace, at that time he would smoke a packet a day! Imagine!

got a bit carried away with my role-playing there, but you know what i mean

 

[john_riemann_soong]

Old English must have had lost a tense for this somewhere along the way, since "use" is of obvious Romance origin. Is this sense like the Greek aorist, perhaps?

"Used to" is a periphrastic construction for a tense that basically no longer exists, just like that English lost a true future tense (at the stage of P-Gmc) a long time ago. A general tense like the imparfait would actually be the norm -- English is the exception.

"Would", as I recall, is the past subjunctive of future "will" (hence making it the conditional), just like the French conditional is basically like a subjunctive version of the future (aimerait => aimer ait). It's also the general past indicative of "will", so it can indicate past habitual action.

The government in 2000 said, "we will help to finance X". In reported speech, this becomes "they said they would help to finance X." If one talks about present habit, one can say, "every morning, he'll go pick up the paper then drink coffee". In the past, this present habit becomes, "every morning, he would pick up the paper then drink coffee".

 

[wildan1]

"Used to" is a periphrastic construction for a tense that basically no longer exists, just like that English lost a true future tense (at the stage of P-Gmc) a long time ago. A general tense like the imparfait would actually be the norm -- English is the exception.

"Would", as I recall, is the past subjunctive of future "will" (hence making it the conditional), just like the French conditional is basically like a subjunctive version of the future (aimerait => aimer ait). It's also the general past indicative of "will", so it can indicate past habitual action.

This is a historical linguist's explanation, which doesn't really help one know how to use the modern language.

Here 's what the British Council says about this dichotomy. Sometimes the usage makes no difference; sometimes it does...

PS un paquet = packet (BE only) or pack (AE)

 

[john_riemann_soong]

Well, I'm explaining mainly why "would" corresponds to two separate tenses, just like "could". "Could" can mean both "would be able to" and "was able to", because the conditional is often analysed as the past subjunctive of the future, resembling the past indicative. Since the conditional and future is only invoked with auxiliaries in English, this confusion doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

 

[eric2be]

Bonjour,

Est ce que quelqu'un pourrait m'expliquer la différence entre they used to think et they would think.

Je n'arrive pas à expliquer grammaticalement. Dans l'exercice que je citais il y a 2 jours ( At the beginning of the century, women wore/ used to wear/ would wear extremely uncomfortable clothes), je "percevais" la différence légère mais j'aimerais avoir une vraie explication grammaticale.

Merci de votre aide sur un sujet assez complexe finalement.

 

[cillou]

hello eric2be

used to indique qu'une habitude, une routine n'a plus cours, a été perdue.
I used to smoke signifie que vous êtes devenu non fumeur
i used to smoke in the morning signifie que vous ne fumez plus le matin

they used to think (sans contexte plus précis) signifie que leur opinion a probablement changé, maintenant ils pensent différemment

would exprime la répétition ou la constance
my grand father would smoke a cigar after dinner met l'accent sur le rituel, l'impression, l'image que le narrateur a gardée
(le grand père est peut être mort depuis et la routine n'existe plus mais ce n'est pas l'information que veut faire passer le narrateur)

si quelqu'un veut compléter...

 

[floise]

Eric2be,

Hi. I saw your post the other day and thought that the test was unnecessarily tricky.

Here is what the Collins Cobuild English Grammar book says about the difference between the use of 'used to' and 'would':

"Used to is similar to would when it is used to describe repeated actions in the past. However, unlike would, used to can also describe past states and situations."

Examples given:

I'm not quite as mad as I used to be.
Actresses used to be very reluctant to wear tight corsets.

(page 243 of the Collins Cobuild English Grammar Book)

floise