Meaning of "used to would" double modal?

[Patty]

Hi Ron - I like this interpretation - of course I have been thinking about
these constructions since yesterday.  I thought of other similar sentences
myself, for example:

"I used to would tell" could have the underlying representations:

I used to would (want to) tell

I used to would (like to) tell


Thus the original construction may not have been a habitual event at all,
maybe the southern performer never told anything, it was all in his head.

I am having fun with this topic :)

Regards,

Patty


----- Original Message -----
From: <RonButters at AOL.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 8:34 AM
Subject: [ADS-L] Meaning of "used to would" double modal?


I sense a difference between

I used to think that the moon was made of green cheese. (= It was formerly
my belief that ...)
AND
I used to would think that the moon was made of green cheese. (= From time
to time the thought crossed my mind that ...)

The unmarked interpretation of the former is continuous.
The unmarked interpretation of the latter is iterative.

I used to would = It used to be (the case) that I would
I used to = It used to be (the case) that I

cf.

I used to could = It used to be (the case) that I could

In a message dated 11/12/09 3:35:48 PM, thnidu at GMAIL.COM writes:


> 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
> 1. lies I used to would tell
> 2. lies I used to tell
> 3. lies I would tell
> 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. 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
>
>

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

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