Conference thebay::joyoflex

    I take it to mean that at one time, the writer/speaker accepted,
    appreciated,  and almost expected clarifying words and expressions.  
    
    Now, however, after having gained world class wordy abilities due to
    having been a serious VISA::JOYOFLEX Noter for quite some time, these 
    clarifying words and expressions have become not only superfluous, but 
    needlessly excessive and irritatingly unnecessary.
    

	My initial, jocular way of presenting my peculiar problem 
was, it seems, not taken the way I intended.  I ask the question 
thus: What are the differences between (and the associated 
etymologies of) the three uses of the phrase 'used to' in my base 
note?  (A related problem concerns the phrase 'use to,' as in: 
'Didn't we use to ... ?'; Is this a valid usage?)

	This phrase may appear superfluous in modern written 
English to some, but it is clearly a _very_ common part of the 
vernacular.  (A suggestion is to issue a "SEARCH 'USED TO'" then 
follow it with subsequent "SEARCH" commands and see how many 
instances can be found without the noter going completely batty!)  
As such, it occurs in time in written speech, or in the speech-
like tone that the finest computer network conferences seem to 
approach (out of a sense of familiarity or comfort in inter-
noter writing, of course).

	This phrase has always bugged me, and I've never found a 
suitable origin for it.  (I've never found _any_ origin for it, for 
that matter.)  I thought it would be fun, and more than a small 
monkey wrench to throw into the 'venerable machine' [tic] of 
lexicographic punditry that exists here! =)

					- Hovig

Note: The word 'tic' is related to the word 'sic,' but does not 
come from Latin, and is much less annoying.  It is actually an 
Old English abbreviation (indeed, an acronym that has become a 
word!) for the phrase 'tunge in cece,' which many computer aided 
translation programs have equated with the modern phrase ':-).'
I prefer the newer dialectic '=).'  (This is not to be confused 
with the dielectric '-|O|-', of course.)

> I used to be used to words used to clarify.

I think that's one too many "used to"s in one sentence.
I think that you should have used two.

    I think some examples from other languages should have been used, too.
    
    --bonnie

�This phrase has always bugged me, and I've never found a 
�suitable origin for it.  (I've never found _any_ origin for it, for 
�that matter.)  
    
    Usage => habit
    
    I haven't studied the history of English, but in 19th century novels
    I'm sure I've come across `we used to' in the sense `it was our custom
    to'; in this sense I've articulated it (mentally) with a /z/ sound.
    Some early books also have the usage `we were used to' (with the same
    meaning). It seems to me possible that the second is a "correction"
    of the first,  after the /z/ became an /s/ and people assumed that
    `used' was just an adjective meaning `accustomed'; with `we' as
    the obvious subject, a new verb had to be introduced.
    
    What is correct now is another matter. I used to think that `used'
    was right (still do, actually). But as the `used' in this expression
    is always followed by a `t', the /d/ sound assimilates to the /t/
    (this is either progressive or regressive, I'm never sure - as
    with the APPEND command: which comes first?); so the /t/ sound
    (which represents the written `d') often gets dropped.
    
    First /z/ => /s/. Then /d/ => /t/. What next?
    
    b

	There is an interesting point to be made now about the 
difference between the two colloquiallisms from 'used to.'  (I 
don't count the 'proper' expression as demonstrated by the phrase 
'this phrase is used to confuse all noters (who don't refuse).')

Verb: 'yooz.'  From the verb derives the expression meaning 'to 
	be once.'  E.g., I used to be confused, but now I'm not sure.
	A problem occurs with the 'to,' in that I'm not sure if 
	the 'to' belongs with the verb 'to be' or the expression
	'used to,' although I suspect the latter is a consequence
	of the former.

	In the verb form, many parallels can be drawn.  'To 
like' and 'to want' come to mind.  I wanted to write, I liked to 
write, I used to write.  I want to write, I like to write ... I 
use to write?  I did want to write, I did like to write, ... I 
did use to write?  In these cases, where does the preposition 
'to' belong?  By definition, it must belong to the verb 'write' 
but is linked to the words 'like,' 'want,' and 'use' by 
convention.

Noun: 'yoos.'  From the noun derives the expression meaning 
	'accustomed to.'  E.g., I'm used to writing silly notes.
	Note that the expression is usually followed by a noun or
	present participle.

	In the noun form, there may be an equivalent phrase in 
'I was wont to.'  'Wont' is a noun, and this may lead to the 
conclusion that the expression was originally 'I was use to' in 
this form.  (I wouldn't buy this yet, but there it is.)

	The pronounciations of the two uses of this phrase differ 
for this reason, methinks.  (Say the sentence 'use an object for 
its intended use' and the difference between 'yooz' and 'yoos' is 
quite clear.)  What a mess!  (... but this is quite fun!)  =)

					- Hovig

Repeat after me:
	This little piggy used to confuse noters.
	This little piggy is used to confuse noters.
	This little piggy is used to confusing noters.
	This little piggy is used for confusing noters.
	This little piggy is going more than a little batty.
	(But how does your little batty go?)

    I thought I understood .0 and would help with a single 
    reply, but now I'm feeling used, too and used two.

    Re .6
>Verb: 'yooz.'  From the verb derives the expression meaning 'to
>	be once.'
>Noun: 'yoos.'  From the noun derives the expression meaning
>	'accustomed to.'
(The second one should be adjective, not noun.)
    
    It used to be used to being used to be to be once, but now it is
    used to being used to be to be once or to be to be accustomed to too.

Yo Stu,

	In Houston, youse two used to use two in Yule stew you 
strew.  You student, you stay your studio: Still you stoop 
(you're all used up).  You stun, you stupify, you stood your 
stool in your study.  This, too, you slew, usuriously.


					Euphemistically,

					Euclid		Euripedes
					Eustachio	U Thant

Re .8

	Gee, at first I didn't realize there was a serious statement  
hidden in there.  Sneaky, sneaky!  =)  I think that 'yoos' is a
noun, not an adjective.  Let's 'yooz' it in a sentence, (or use two):

	I have no use for this.  (One can't 'have' an adjective, surely.)
	Even simpler: This is its use.  (Clearly a noun.)

	Try to use it as a descriptive word.  It doesn't work.  
The only possible adjective form is, methinks, 'useful.'  Also: 
'usefulness' is a noun, and 'usefully' is the adverb, n'est-ce pas?

					- Hovig

P.S.: I'm convincing myself more and more each day that the 
expression from 'yoos' is actually (etymologically) 'use to,' as 
in 'I am use to all this silliness.'

    Re .10
    Oh sorry, yes 'yoos' by itself is a noun.  I thought you were analysing
    uses of 'yoos' with an implied 'to' following, since your 'used'
    uses
    used to use 'used to.'  'Used to' might be verb, adverb, or adjective,
    but not noun.
    
    Re .9
    I think that that U that U Thant used to use used to use a pronunciation
    like "ooh" not "you."

    "Used" can be an adjective.  As in "used cars," for instance.  
    
    --bonnie

    There's also an impersonal form, meaning "it was formerly the case
    that...".
    
    	"It used to be that people didn't lip-synch at staff meetings."
    
    which had a negative: "usen't to be", e.g.
    
        "I didn't think a severe chill was hereditary."
    
    	"It usen't to be, I know, but I daresay it is now.  Science
    	 is always making wonderful improvements in things."
    
    					- The Importance of Being Earnest
    					  Oscar Wilde
    						
    
    Sorry if this point was raised in the earlier replies; some of them 
    were a bit, well, overpowering.  I'm humbled to be in such (a) company.

    As for the /z/ -> /s/, /d/ -> /t/ changes, this is quite common cf.
    fussed versus fuzed or kits versus kids.  Both /z/ and /d/ are voiced,
    while /s/ and /t/ are unvoiced.
    
    Wook

    Re .13
    > "It usen't to be, I know, but I daresay it is now."
    
    The uucp program usen't to be so important, but I daresay...