Meaning of "used to would" double modal?

[Patty]

Hello Jesse - I have a project that started out as an investigation of
stative verbs with progressive aspects and temporal placement.  This was
based on a semantics class assignment a long time ago.  I looked and my
email folder starts after that and I included the very first message, off
the Linguist List actually, that kept my curiosity going about these types
of constructions.  Maybe reading it, will lead you in a direction.  My own
research has grown to include tense and mood and the perfect.  I don't
understand it nearly as well as I would like - whether a sentence is
grammatical or not - and what is possible in a cross section of languages -
Here is my original sentence that started the whole thing; differing
opinions on whether the sentence was grammatical or not:

 I will be finishing this task in an hour.

like I am predicting the future :)

Now that I am considering it, based on my futuristic point of view, it
sounds like your southern performer is trying to rewrite his past and
everyone knows you can't do that........

Regards,

Patty Davies


----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Doyle" <cdoyle at UGA.EDU>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ADS-L] Meaning of "used to would" double modal?


> Speaking from my own "Southern" intuitions:
>
> The modal "would" here simply adds--or emphasizes--a sense of habituality.
>
> --Charlie
> __________________________________________________________
>
> ---- Original message ----
>>Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:24:21 -0500
>>From: American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> (on behalf of
>>Jesse Sheidlower <jester at PANIX.COM>)
>>
>>A friend encountered some examples of the "used to would" double modal in
>>a song by a southern performer. I explained the general idea, but he
>>pointed out that in the examples in the song--things like "lies I used to
>>would tell" or "people I used to would hate"--the "would" seemed
>>redundant, and he asked if the double modal was emphatic, or random, or
>>what.
>>
>>I don't actually know, and figured I'd ask here rather than trying to make
>>something up based on the few resources for this that I have handy.
>>
>>Thanks for any input.
>>
>>Jesse Sheidlower
>>OED
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>
>
----- Original Message -----
From: "LINGUIST List" <linguist at linguistlist.org>
To: <LINGUIST at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:13 PM
Subject: 13.111, Qs: Double Aspectual Constructions, "They"


> LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-111. Thu Jan 17 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.
>
> Subject: 13.111, Qs: Double Aspectual Constructions, "They"
>
> Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
>            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
>            Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>
>
> Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
> Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
> Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona
>
> Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
> Karen Milligan, WSU Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
> Jody Huellmantel, WSU James Yuells, WSU
> Michael Appleby, EMU Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
> Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U. Heather Taylor-Loring, EMU
> Dina Kapetangianni, EMU Richard Harvey, EMU
> Karolina Owczarzak, EMU Renee Galvis, WSU
>
> Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
>          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>
>
> Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/
>
> The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
> State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.
>
>
>
> Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
> ===========================================================================
>
> We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
> best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
> then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
> instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
> would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.
>
> In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
> is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
> taken the trouble to respond to the query.
>
>
> =================================Directory=================================
>
> 1)
> Date:  Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:04:15 +0000
> From:  jlc115 <jlc115 at york.ac.uk>
> Subject:  Double Aspectual Constructions
>
> 2)
> Date:  Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:51:07 -0600
> From:  "carljweber" <carljweber at msn.com>
> Subject:  "They"
>
> -------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------
>
> Date:  Thu, 17 Jan 2002 11:04:15 +0000
> From:  jlc115 <jlc115 at york.ac.uk>
> Subject:  Double Aspectual Constructions
>
> I am working on the syntax of Double Aspectual Constructions like (1):
>
> (1) He could have not have done that.
>
> These are found in dialects of Scottish English and in dialects from the
> North East of England.  Does anyone know if these constructions are also
> possible in any dialects of American English?  Also, would anyone who
> uses these constructions be willing to give some judgements?
>
> Please reply to me directly.
>
> Thanks,
> Joanne Close
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------
>
> Date:  Tue, 8 Jan 2002 12:51:07 -0600
> From:  "carljweber" <carljweber at msn.com>
> Subject:  "They"
>
>
> Given all that the OED says about "they" (and other pronouns) --
> Your comments are appreciated.
>
> 1. What is the evidence behind the OED's presentation that "they" is
> Danish?
> (a) Is it a "probably" type conclusion? (b) Is it based on similarity of
> forms only?
> 2. Why was the older nominative all-genders plural pronoun replaced at
> all?
> Were there developmental constraints, the result of reorganization during
> the period of Norman dominance?
>
> This "they" pronoun seems to have been the only trespasser into "basic"
> English (with the other th-plurals later following). Has any native source
> been suggested?
>
> Carl Jeffrey Weber
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> LINGUIST List: Vol-13-111
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org