The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support Forums"Used to could"
Can I get some Lounge backup that this is a perfectly sensible phrase?
KMOD
(7,906 posts)[youtube]
[/youtube]Callmecrazy
(3,065 posts)but I can't no more.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Sanity Claws
(21,852 posts)I used to be able to fly but can't anymore. That kryptonite did a real job on me.
The construction is used + infinitive. Used to fly, used to run, used to be ...
Could is not an infinitive.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)along with "can", because they don't conjugate.
Sanity Claws
(21,852 posts)Could is the conditional form of can. It is not a distinct verb but a form of can.
I don't understand what you are talking about when you claim that would, should, and could are technically infinitives because they don't conjugate. I've never heard such a thing. Those three words are forms of will, shall, and can, respectively.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's not finitely limited by person, number, or aspect (though it is by mood and tense).
Could is the conditional form of can
It was, 400 years ago. It's a non-conjugable ("infinitive" verb now
Sanity Claws
(21,852 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Try saying "to should", "to would" or "to could", and you'll realize that they are not infinitives. They are actually modal helping verbs.
https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-classification-helping.htm
mackerel
(4,412 posts)in the non-conjugated form e.g. to run, to walk, etc.
BainsBane
(53,056 posts)not infinitives. Translate that into French or some other Romance language and then try to claim they are infinitives. They are not.
Ptah
(33,034 posts)LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)Still Blue in PDX
(1,999 posts)orleans
(34,073 posts)i doubt an editor would print it
and a professor would not find it acceptable in a paper that was turned in
KMOD
(7,906 posts)but it is not proper English.
So as far as sensibility? It will make absolute sense to southerners. For everyone else it's a double modal that makes not sense. Up north, we use, Used to be able.