Meaning of "used to would" double modal?

[Herb Stahlke]

I'm not a Southerner, in spite of living in Atlanta for six years.  No
one has sugested that "lies I used to would tell" could have a
volitional sense, as "would" itself could have in

You WOULD suggest that.

Herb

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:34 AM,  <RonButters at aol.com> wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       RonButters at AOL.COM
> Subject:      Meaning of "used to would" double modal?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I sense a difference between=20
>
> I used to think that the moon was made of green cheese. (=3D It was former=
> ly=20
> my belief that ...)
> AND
> I used to would think that the moon was made of green cheese. (=3D From ti=
> me=20
> to time the thought crossed my mind that ...)
>
> The unmarked interpretation of the former is continuous.
> The unmarked interpretation of the latter is iterative.=20
>
> I used to would =3D It used to be (the case) that I would=20
> I used to =3D It used to be (the case) that I
>
> cf.
>
> I used to could =3D 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.=
> =20
>> What
>> does "would" add to that? Does it emphasizes the habituality, as Charles
>> suggests, or is it semantically redundant?
>>=20
>> Compare
>> 1. lies I used to would tell
>> 2. lies I used to tell
>> 3. lies I would tell
>> 4. lies I told
>>=20
>> 2, 3, and 4 are all in my dialect and pretty broadly in US usage. For me=
> ,=20
>> 2
>> and 3 are synonymous or pret'near so,* referring to habitual lying in th=
> e
>> past. In contrast, 4 can refer to any past lying, habitual or not,=20
>> including
>> a single occasion ("lies I told last night").
>>=20
>> * leaving aside the conditional use of 3
>>=20
>> m a m
>>=20
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:
>>=20
>> > 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=20
>> habituality.
>> >
>> > Speaking from my own "Northern" attempts to understand English spoken
>> > by others, I have the same sense.=A0 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
>> >
>> >
>>=20
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>>=20
>>=20
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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