Re: [ADS-L] Meaning of "used to would" double modal?

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

I thought "The War" meant the one that took place in 1914-1918. Wilson is 
apparently much older than I thought.


In a message dated 11/12/09 10:16:44 PM, hwgray at GMAIL.COM writes:


> 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:    American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> > Poster:    Mark Mandel <thnidu at GMAIL.COM>
> > Subject:   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
> > 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
> >
> 
> 
> 
> --
> -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
> 

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