use(d) to--typo

[Laurence Horn]

At 1:48 PM -0400 8/14/03, Laurence Horn wrote:
>Again, because it isn't pronounced that way or treated that way
>grammatically, as Arnold has noted.  If it were treated like a like a
>normal preterite based on the verb "use", "That's the car I used to
>drive" would be homonymous between the two meanings (I used that car
>to drive, I formerly used that car)

Of course, I meant 'I formerly drove that car', not 'I formerly used that car'

>, but the latter meaning can only
>be pronounced "yoose-ta" (with some possible variation in the final
>vowel between schwa and something closer to /u/, but with no voicing
>in the -st- cluster).  The fact that it's more of a (quasi-)modal
>than a preterite makes it hard to write "didn't use to", but that
>fact that it's treated orthographically (in the positive) as if it
>were (still) "used" + "to" makes it hard to write "didn't used to".
>
>Larry