1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 
Bob Cunningham writes
John Lawler writes

Both forms? Of "use to"? a) The shovel in the ... I'm not getting it. Nor does the subject heading help.

There are people who say that we shouldn't write "didn't used to" because it's ungrammatical. There are other people who ... I "hear-hear"ed at was that it doesn't matter how they're pronounced, because what we're discussing here is how they're written.

Ah, you're talking about the past form of 'used to'. I get it now. Yes, that is a problem, for the writing system. It doesn't looked right when you spell it that way, does it?

But of course it's only a problem for the writing system, so it's not strictly speaking a language problem. The obvious solution is to spell it any way you feel is correct, since that's what everybody does anyway.
Again, the fact that "would of gone" and "would have gone" may both be pronounced ('[email protected] gA:n) is not an acceptable reason for writing the first in place of the second.

Except in eye dialect, of course.
Anyway, I apologize for saying "Professor Lawler, take heed". It was impertinent of me.

No need to apologize.
Pertinence is a much overrated virtue, in my opinion. But I can't take heed if there's nowhere to take it to.

-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept "But do we know how to welcome into our mother tongue the distant echoes that reverberate in the hollow centers of words? When reading words, we see them and no longer hear them." Gaston Bachelard
Bob Cunningham writes

There are people who say that we shouldn't write "didn't ... pronounced, because what we're discussing here is how they're written.

Ah, you're talking about the past* form of 'used to'. I get it now. Yes, that is a problem, for ... it? But of course it's *only a problem for the writing system, so it's not strictly speaking a language problem.

There's written language, spoken language, and sign language. In each case symbols are used to stand for thoughts. The first one uses graphic symbols; the second, vocal symbols; and the third, symbolic gestures. I see no reason to consider any one of them the real language to the exclusion of the others.
It can't be right to say that a society made up exclusively of deaf mutes who could communicate well would have no language just because they couldn't make or hear vocal symbols corresponding to their thoughts.
In AUE the primary language is the written language. We communicate almost exclusively with written symbols no sounds and no sign language. How we speak can be said to not be a language problem in this environment.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?