Confused

Hello,

I've been taught that would is not used with verbs of state when we mean the same as used to (please, notice that I am not talking about conditional sentences).  However, I have found these sentences which, as you can see, mean the same as used to.

I take it, these sentences are correct.  The problem is that now I am confused.  Different grammar books say that verbs of state do not go with would in sentences that are not conditional sentences.  That is, when we talk about past habits, routines and customs.

'When I was young, we would believe anyone who was older than us.
In those days, we would own pointy shoes with Cuban heels and fast cars with open pipes, and would live our lives like there was no tomorrow.'

I would appreciate your help.

Thank you.

Hi ,Wolfrolf    

Have a look at this post[link]

A stative verb is a verb of state.  A state is a situation that lasts for some time, normally a long time without interruption.  For example, possessions, when you possess something, like a car.  You have a car.  That car is yours even when you are not driving it.  You are a teacher.  You are a teacher even when you are not working.  If you believe in God, you do it even when you are not praying or talking about him.  And so on.

Other verbs like this: know, understand, believe, own, be, love, like

I take it, these sentences are correct.

That's a (somewhat) safe assumption if you found them already formed by native speakers.  So now the problem is to find an interpretation that makes them correct.

First of all, while stative verbs don't go well in this sort of construction with would, stative verbs can be combined with other sentence elements to make them non-stative (dynamic).  It's not the stative verb that's the problem; it's the entire stative expression, allowing for context.  A stative verb in the right context becomes a dynamic expression.

So -- in what way are these verbs combined with other elements in a way that makes them non-stative?

we would believe anyone who was older does not concern stative believing; it is the event of coming to believe something told by someone older the moment it was told.  For this reason, would should be fine here.  I see no objection to it.  It's quite similar to we would imitate anyone who was older.

we would own pointy shoes with Cuban heels does seem awkward.  To interpret this, we need to think of it as the event of coming to own the shoes, as in ?we came to own pointy shoes, that is, we would buy pointy shoes or we would make sure that we had pointy shoes to wear.  I would not personally use would here, but I do see that it is a possibility.

we would live our lives like there was no tomorrow is somewhat less problematic, perhaps, because here the paraphrase might be we would behave like there was no tomorrow.  In any case, living, in the sense of carrying on the activities of daily life, is not nearly so stative as it might first appear.

CJ

CalifJim wrote:

A stative verb has no moving parts! If the verb expresses something that you can do while sitting still, not moving a muscle, it's probably stative! If the verb expresses something that you cannot observe when another person is doing it, it's probably stative! CJ

Ok. If would is not acceptable with stative verbs, then what should be used instead of would.