-1

I know the answer seems pretty obvious, but I looked everywhere I could and found no answer. I found no reliable source clearly stating that “use to” is a phrasal verb. Allow me to explain to you why I am confused about this issue. Take the following sentence in the past simple:

“I used to eat watermelon.”

“Use to,” has only one use: to introduce past habits (which were lost, obviously).

The sentence above also makes it clear that “use to” is a transitive verb. But what kind of object is “eat” then?

The true source of my confusion is that it seems that “use to” takes the “to” away from the infinitive, probably to avoid repetition. If you tell me that “eat” in the sentence above is, indeed, in the infinitive, then I am at peace. It will be clear to me that “use to” is a phrasal verb. If not, does “to” belong to “eat” then? And if he latter is the case, is “use” always common verb and most people simply incorrectly write it together with “to?”

Thanks in advance.

  • In the sense of habit (as opposed to agency), use (in the past tense only, of course) licenses a to-infinitive. (But not a bare infinitive: you can't say I used eat watermelon.) This is the same syntax as the synonymous "It was my habit to eat watermelon". Ite in pace. – deadrat Oct 7 '16 at 9:17
  • Wonderful! Thank you! Then “use to,” as a phrasal verb, does not exist. Do I understand that correctly? – user199794 Oct 7 '16 at 9:33
  • Yes, I used to X is a special idiomatic usage meaning It was my habit to do X, where to X is the infinitive form of a verb. One test for a phrasal verb is whether it's possible to analyze the verb and preposition literally. For instance I look after my brother doesn't mean I look beyond him. It means I take care of him. So look after is phrasal. On the other hand I look at my brother means literally that I hold my gaze on him. Look at is not phrasal. – deadrat Oct 7 '16 at 9:39
0

It's an archaism that passed (no pun intended) into common use because it was useful.

If you look up alternative meanings of "use" in a good historical dictionary you should find it means "to have the habit", and also "to treat" [a person in a certain way].

English sure is flexible with its idiom!

  • 1
    Michael, while your answer is fitting, this site strives to provide objective answers. As it stands your answer is purely subjective and could be improved by adding references. Take the tour or have a look at the help center to find out more about good answers. – Helmar Oct 7 '16 at 10:38
  • Mentioning that this can be found in any good dictionary is not specific enough? It's still the only answer. – Michael May 19 '17 at 10:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy