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 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 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 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 Banned

    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 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 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 Banned

    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 Banned

    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 Banned

    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 Banned

    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 Banned

    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.
     
  32. dudass Senior Member

    spanish
    Siempre pensé que forget era un verbo de estado. He visto en un libro la siguiente frase: My aunt always remembered my birthday, she would never forget it. ¿Se trata de un error del libro?

    Gracias.
     
  33. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    Forget es "olvidar", y no es un verbo de estado, pero el significado más probable de "she would never forget it" es "nunca lo olvidaría".
     
  34. dudass Senior Member

    spanish
    As remember appears in books as a stative verb, I guessed forget was a stative verb too.
     
  35. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    Perhaps I don't understand what they mean by "stative verb", but in fact "would remember" can mean either "recordaba" or "recordaría", and "would forget" can mean either "olvidaba" or "olvidaría", depending on context. "Used to remember" can mean "recordaba" but not "recordaría", and "used to forget" can mean "olvidaba" but not "olvidaría".

    Does that help?
     
  36. dudass Senior Member

    spanish
    Stative verbs are verbs that express a state rather than an action. They usually relate to thoughts, emotions, relationships, senses, states of being and measurements. These verbs are not usually used with ing in progressive (continuous) tenses.

    We cannot use would to talk about past states. Instead we use used to or the past simple:
    When I was younger, I used to like sweets/ I liked sweets/ but not I would like sweets.

    Stative verbs are not supposed to be used with stative verbs like remember, agree, want, etc.

    That's what grammar books say. However I have read :When I was a child she would never forget my birthday. And that breaks the rule.
    I am in a mess.
     
  37. FromPA

    FromPA Senior Member

    Philadelphia area
    USA English
    remembering, forgetting... aren't they stative verbs? - ESL Forums

    Evidently, verbs can be both stative and dynamic depending on how they are used. If I say "I forget who you are" (I'm in a state of forgetfulness), that's a stative use, but if I say "I must be forgetting something" (I am actively trying to remember something, but can't), that's a dynamic use.

    "She would never forget my birthday" means "she would always act in a considerate manner."
     
  38. dudass Senior Member

    spanish
    Does that mean that sentence a is correct and b incorrect?

    a She would always remember my birthday.
    b She would remember her childhood whenever she came back to her village.

    Thank you.
     
  39. FromPA

    FromPA Senior Member

    Philadelphia area
    USA English
    They're both correct. They both involve an act of remembering rather than a continuous state.

    "She always remembered by birthday" can mean two things: 1) whenever she was asked about when I was born, she knew the date (a continuous state), or 2) she remembered to acknowledge my birthday every year (each year being an individual act of remembering/acknowledging). The first use is stative, and the second is dynamic.
     
  40. dudass Senior Member

    spanish
    Could you give me then an example in which would remember (meaning a past state) is incorrect?

    If there is none, the book is wrong.
     
  41. FromPA

    FromPA Senior Member

    Philadelphia area
    USA English
    I don't think "would remember" would ever be used to describe a past, continuous state; therefore, it would always be incorrect to use it that way if your intended meaning is a past, continuous state.

    It can refer to a conditional state in present tense: If I had met him (before), I'm sure I would remember him (now).

    It can refer to regularly recurring events in the past (multiple, individual events rather than a continuous state): Whenever I went to church, I would remember to light a candle.

    These are the only two examples I can think of. I would consider the first to be a conditional stative use (it would exist in my memory if I had met him) and the second a dynamic use (individual acts of acknowledgement).
     
  42. dudass Senior Member

    spanish
    Thank you for your time and your attempt to help.
     
  43. FromPA

    FromPA Senior Member

    Philadelphia area
    USA English
    I take it you're still confused. Don't worry, 99 out of 100 English speakers have no idea what a "stative verb" is (I had to google it to figure out what you were talking about). The main thing I learned is that most (if not all) stative verbs can also be used in a dynamic way if the context calls for it, so don't be too rigid in trying to apply the rules.
     
  44. dudass Senior Member

    spanish
    Yes, I am still confused about the cases in which would can`t be used as an alternative to the pattern used to, but I have learnt from you that stative verbs can behave as dynamic verbs when the meaning or use we give them is synonymous with the meaning of a dynamic verb. That's a lot. The problem is that I have to teach it to my students, and grammar books and native speakers don't agree. And those are my only two sources of information.
     
  45. FromPA

    FromPA Senior Member

    Philadelphia area
    USA English
    Now I appreciate the nature of your problem. I certainly don't envy you. :)


    As to "would" vs "used to," I believe "would" can only be used when referring to events ocurring in a specific timeframe rather than to events not defined by a timeframe.

    I used to go to movies when I lived in Spain. I would go to movies when I lived in Spain:tick: (timeframe=when I lived in Spain)
    I used to go to the movies (I don't anymore). I would go to the movies :cross: ( no specific timeframe)
    I used to go to the movies all the time. I would go to the movies all the time :cross: (not a specific timeframe)
    I would go to the movies all the time when I live in Spain. :tick:
     
  46. Forero Senior Member

    Houston, Texas, USA
    USA English
    How can you break a "rule" that says something is "not usually used" but does not say when it is used?

    Most verbs that relate to thoughts, emotions, relationships, senses, being, and measurements can express both a continuous state and an action or change of state, and even a "continuous" state can sometimes be temporally connected to multiple actions or to multiple observations.

    The main issue with "would" and "used to" is ambiguity. "Would" has lots of meanings, and so does "used to". "Would" and "used to" share some, but not all, of their meanings.

    FromPa's examples show that "would go" cannot always substitute for "used to go", so the issue is not just with "stative" verbs.

    "I would like sweets" has the same problem as "I would go to the movies": not enough supporting context. "All the time" by itself is not enough context to support "would" in place of "used to". "When I was younger" by itself is enough to support "would go" in place of "used to go" but not enough to support "would like" in place of "used to like". It is harder to think of enough context to keep "would like" from meaning "querría", but I think it is possible:

    When I used to go to Starbucks with my friends, I could not stand the coffee they raved about, but I would always like the sweets.

    And there are sentences in which "would" means "solía" but "used to" just does not fit. It all depends on the context.
     

Share This Page

Loading...