Oh lordy. More semantics that keep derailing the thread...
I mean, I actually agree with you on that. I find myself tempted to write some longwinded post and then I think, "But that's not what I should do! That's not what we're here for."
On the other hand, I do have to crack up a little bit on this one because you almost make it sound like it's some force of nature. Like "Oh no, the thread has a semantics storm in it." But really it seems to me that it's a direct consequence of a choice you made. I made what I thought was perfectly normal comment (...I had an intuition that it used to work this way because that seemed like the way it used to work a long time ago, but it's good to get a more updated confirmation of that) and you chose to quibble over the semantics of it. You could have said nothing, or simply said, "As far as I know/remember, it's always worked that way." But you didn't. And that's fine.
Actually, no. "Used to" implies that it did work in the past, stopped at some point, and started up again. That's really how everyone talks.
It occurs to me that my facetious reply earlier wasn't a very productive response. I thought that perhaps the italics would give away that I was being deliberately hyperbolic, but I forgot to follow it up with a smiley to make it really clear. And either way, I probably shouldn't be silly when you seem to be serious. So yeah, I was being deliberately hyperbolic there. Obviously not everyone speaks English or can even speak at all.
But I responded that way instinctively out of what might have been undue annoyance at being "corrected" on a topic where not only do I think I'm in the right, but where I actually know a fair bit about the subject. When given the opportunity, I used to take technical classes on English language usage out of some strange idea that I'd want to go on to be a professional editor. Of course there's a lot I don't know and I make mistakes. But I actually do remember something on this exact subject...
The two-word phrase "used to" is an idiomatic fixed expression. Fixed expressions are often inconsistent and nuanced, and their purpose can depend on context. If you took a person new to the English language and taught that person the meaning of the word "use" and the meaning of the word "to" then that person would not have a very good idea of how "used to" is applied in everyday speech. our English-learner might decipher a sentence like, "That knife is
used to cut meat." In that sentence, the words mean what they would mean separately. But then there's, "Learning English is difficult at first, but you will get
used to it." Suddenly those two words in the same order mean something else completely different. Easy for you or me, but not at all intuitive. The reason this idiom exists is that the word "use" was once commonly
used to mean (among other things) that someone or something was in the habit or circumstance of doing something. Here are some old quotes I pulled up...
"Euery man ranne naked, to this ende, that they might vse to be swift."
"Your silke-worme useth to fast every third day."
"In that Season of the Year when the Water uses to be lowest."
In all of those contexts, the writer isn't using a variation on "use" to talk about something in the past. Back then, it was more flexible and could be in the present. But over time, most of that went extinct in the English language and "used to" survived only as an expression to refer to things in the past. And
usually, it's something that once was the case, but now no longer is. But the sticking point is "usually." Like most fixed expressions, usage isn't 100% consistent. For instance, let's say that I once lived in a town, now live somewhere else, and that now my friend is in the process of moving to that town. My friend asks me, "Is there a library in town?" I respond, "Yes, I think it's still there. I know there used to be one on 2nd Avenue when I lived there." I would think that when my friend found a library on 2nd Avenue, he would conclude that the library I was referring to was indeed still there, and not that it's some new library on account of how the one I was talking about couldn't exist anymore because I said "used to." The full context of my statement indicates that I merely have knowledge of a past state, and couldn't guarantee that it continues to be the case.
In fact, a source I found on Merriam Webster's site with a quick search on this topic has two recent quotes showing two different usages of the same expression...
"Most people don't know that I'm afraid of public speaking. I used to try to avoid it, but finally, it has taught me that when we're in the same space with all our senses, we empathize with each other in a way that could never occur on the page or screen." —Gloria Steinem, quoted in O, The Oprah Magazine, 1 Nov. 2015
"I used to make fun of the audience, and little by little, it became more and more a part of my performance." —Don Rickles, quoted in The New York Magazine, 11 Jan. 2016
What I gather from context is that Gloria Steinem is pretty clearly saying "was formerly the case, but no longer" when she uses "used to." She uses the expression to signal that she is talking about her past behavior, then follows it with a "but" and something else. She is saying that she changed. What "used to" be no longer is.
In contract, what I gather from the context of the other quote is that Don Rickles started out making fun of his audience at some point in the past, and then worked it into his performance. He's not saying, "I don't make fun of my audience anymore." He probably makes fun of his audience
more now than he did when he "used to."* He's using the phrase to talk about his past, but not in an exclusive way that says things are not that way anymore. That's just one example. I'm sure I could find others. But really, I don't think it's
that strange. I'd be quick to agree that
usually when people talk about what "used to be" it's meant in an exclusive way. But that's not a hard and fast rule. I thought that my own context you referred to was clear enough, but apparently it was not. I'm actually still not sure, reading over it myself, where the confusion would stem from, but sometimes we're blind to our own failings in that regard. But regardless, I meant "used to" in an inclusive sense and strongly contend that such usage is established in the English lexicon. Not sure what else to say on the matter. I wasn't trying to derail the thread and thought I was being cordial up until the point when I snarkily made the "everyone talks that way" comment.
*Technically, Don Rickles is now deceased. But I was talking about his mentality at the time he made the quoted statement.
