Meaning of "used to would" double modal?

[Wilson Gray]

Back During The War, people I knew that had come from "out state," (=
not from the Saint Louis dialect area) used to would say something
more like [pˆrtn at r] than "pret'near." Unfortunately, this
pronunciation was such an object of mockery that I can't recall how
the phrase was truly pronounced. "PURT' ner" was the
laugh-at-them-behind-their-backs pronunciation. The first syllable was
definitely [pˆrt], But the second one might very well have been a
definite "near." That is, such speakers might actually have said
"purt' near" or "purt' NEAR."

-Wilson

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Mark Mandel <thnidu at gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender: Â  Â  Â  American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster: Â  Â  Â  Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject: Â  Â  Â Re: Meaning of "used to would" double modal?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But "used to" already expresses not just past tense, but habitual past. What
> does "would" add to that? Does it emphasizes the habituality, as Charles
> suggests, or is it semantically redundant?
>
> Compare
> Â 1. lies I used to would tell
> Â 2. lies I used to tell
> Â 3. lies I would tell
> Â 4. lies I told
>
> 2, 3, and 4 are all in my dialect and pretty broadly in US usage. For me, 2
> and 3 are synonymous or pret'near so,* referring to habitual lying in the
> past. In contrast, 4 can refer to any past lying, habitual or not, including
> a single occasion ("lies I told last night").
>
> * leaving aside the conditional use of 3
>
> m a m
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>
>> At 11/12/2009 02:30 PM, Charles Doyle wrote:
>> >Speaking from my own "Southern" intuitions:
>> >
>> >The modal "would" here simply adds--or emphasizes--a sense of habituality.
>>
>> Speaking from my own "Northern" attempts to understand English spoken
>> by others, I have the same sense. Â The "would" tells me that the
>> speaker, talking about the past ("used to"), in that past more than
>> once did the thing in question ("would" lie, hate).
>>
>> Joel
>>
>>
>> >--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
>



--
-Wilson
–––
All say, "How hard it is that we have to die!"––a strange complaint to
come from the mouths of people who have had to live.
–Mark Twain

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