to have used to

[g***@gmail.com]

(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.

(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.

Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or
can we judge them to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

Thank you. :)

[Eric Walker]

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

When he's right, he's right, although his expression is a bit extreme.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

Post by Eric Walker
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Spains Harden]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

They are the sort of language you might expect in dialect or in
uneducated speech - they are not "fine".

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Spains Harden

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

They are the sort of language you might expect in dialect or in
uneducated speech - they are not "fine".

I got the same sort of replies here when I asked about
sentences like "Having used to smoke, he occasionally
craves a cigarette." Everybody here told me it was
ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I mentioned
the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed
right away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.

That's all I'm waiting for here, for someone to admit to
the truth of this double negative, that the (b) sentences
are _not_ _un_grammatical. I have never used such sentences.
To my knowledge, no one does. But it doesn't follow that
they are ungrammatical, that if someone used them they wouldn't
be grammatical.

The generalization I am working on, and believe in the truth of,
regardless of how the idea will be poo-pooed here, is that in
nonfinite contexts (in participial or infinitival clauses)
"used to" can grammatically, and in standard English, be used
after "have" as a perfect auxiliary. In finite contexts, by contrast,
it is ungrammatical in modern English: *"He has used to live there."

[Pat Durkin]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

I got the same sort of replies here when I asked about
sentences like "Having used to smoke, he occasionally
craves a cigarette." Everybody here told me it was
ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I mentioned
the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed
right away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.
That's all I'm waiting for here, for someone to admit to
the truth of this double negative, that the (b) sentences
are _not_ _un_grammatical. I have never used such sentences.
To my knowledge, no one does. But it doesn't follow that
they are ungrammatical, that if someone used them they wouldn't
be grammatical.
The generalization I am working on, and believe in the truth of,
regardless of how the idea will be poo-pooed here, is that in
nonfinite contexts (in participial or infinitival clauses)
"used to" can grammatically, and in standard English, be used
after "have" as a perfect auxiliary. In finite contexts, by contrast,
it is ungrammatical in modern English: *"He has used to live there."

So you have a bet going on and are desperate to win it? You are wrong, for (b) in both examples is not correct. Your linguistics professor was not answering the question you are asking here, or if he was, he skipped the matter of usage, in favor of some weird hypothetical.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

I got the same sort of replies here when I asked about
sentences like "Having used to smoke, he occasionally
craves a cigarette." Everybody here told me it was
ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I mentioned
the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed
right away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.
That's all I'm waiting for here, for someone to admit to
the truth of this double negative, that the (b) sentences
are _not_ _un_grammatical. I have never used such sentences.
To my knowledge, no one does. But it doesn't follow that
they are ungrammatical, that if someone used them they wouldn't
be grammatical.
The generalization I am working on, and believe in the truth of,
regardless of how the idea will be poo-pooed here, is that in
nonfinite contexts (in participial or infinitival clauses)
"used to" can grammatically, and in standard English, be used
after "have" as a perfect auxiliary. In finite contexts, by contrast,
it is ungrammatical in modern English: *"He has used to live there."

So you have a bet going on and are desperate to win it? You are wrong,

There's no bet. I'm asserting a matter of fact, about which I am correct.

for (b) in both examples is not correct. Your linguistics professor was not answering the question you are asking here, or if he was, he skipped the matter of usage, in favor of some weird hypothetical.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Pat Durkin

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

I got the same sort of replies here when I asked about
sentences like "Having used to smoke, he occasionally
craves a cigarette." Everybody here told me it was
ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I mentioned
the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed
right away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.
That's all I'm waiting for here, for someone to admit to
the truth of this double negative, that the (b) sentences
are _not_ _un_grammatical. I have never used such sentences.
To my knowledge, no one does. But it doesn't follow that
they are ungrammatical, that if someone used them they wouldn't
be grammatical.
The generalization I am working on, and believe in the truth of,
regardless of how the idea will be poo-pooed here, is that in
nonfinite contexts (in participial or infinitival clauses)
"used to" can grammatically, and in standard English, be used
after "have" as a perfect auxiliary. In finite contexts, by contrast,
it is ungrammatical in modern English: *"He has used to live there."

So you have a bet going on and are desperate to win it? You are wrong,

There's no bet. I'm asserting a matter of fact, about which I am correct.
for (b) in both examples is not correct. Your linguistics professor was not answering the question you are asking here,

He was responding to my earlier inquiry, about sentences like
"Having used to smoke, he still occasionally craves a cigarette."
Everybody who replied here rejected it, but to me it is obviously
correct, or at least obviously _not_ _un_grammatical.

Going back to my question here, I have found a few examples on the Net:

“The two claimed to have used to counterfeit currency to obtain drugs
and buy electronics on Craigslist.”
https://5newsonline.com/2012/10/24/river-valley-couple-accused-printing-counterfeit-money/

"She was said to have used to carry secrets and go about with calumnies.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=hiBLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=%22said+to+have+used+to%22&source=bl&ots=BBdg8d7O_0&sig=ACfU3U1ipKbS1lfts6IE47vsziCTpvjzcA&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDmIbYtYbnAhXQHM0KHeNiBUYQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22said%20to%20have%20used%20to%22&f=false

“Mbah Dipo is said to have used to be the caretaker of Mount Semeru . . .”
https://nusadaily.com/en/culture/the-eternal-mystery-of-mount-semeru.html

“Fred claimed to have used to perform illegal abortions . . .”


or if he was, he skipped the matter of usage, in favor of some weird hypothetical.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by g***@gmail.com
“The two claimed to have used to counterfeit currency to obtain drugs
and buy electronics on Craigslist.”
https://5newsonline.com/2012/10/24/river-valley-couple-accused-printing-counterfeit-money/

That's a good one. (I wonder why I didn't see it in my search just now,
though.)

Shirley, a typo for "The two claimed to have used counterfeit currency"?

Post by g***@gmail.com
"She was said to have used to carry secrets and go about with calumnies.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=hiBLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=%22said+to+have+used+to%22&source=bl&ots=BBdg8d7O_0&sig=ACfU3U1ipKbS1lfts6IE47vsziCTpvjzcA&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDmIbYtYbnAhXQHM0KHeNiBUYQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22said%20to%20have%20used%20to%22&f=false

Not by a native speaker. Above on that page you can see, "His reference
to the fact that such of people as does not conceal secrets and rather
goes about with calumnies should be produced out of fornication is
elicited from the statement of Allah Almighty: "Violent (and cruel),
with all that, base-born."

Has "calumny" been in general use outside Shakespeare quotes for the
past few centuries? Has it shown up in one of the more popular Qur'an
"translations," which aren't noted for contemporary style?

[no comment on your other observations]

[Janet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

?The two claimed to have used to counterfeit currency to obtain drugs
and buy electronics on Craigslist.?
https://5newsonline.com/2012/10/24/river-valley-couple-accused-printing-counterfeit-money/

That's a good one. (I wonder why I didn't see it in my search just now,
though.)

Shirley, a typo for "The two claimed to have used counterfeit currency"?

"She was said to have used to carry secrets and go about with calumnies.?
https://books.google.com/books?id=hiBLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=%22said+to+have+used+to%22&source=bl&ots=BBdg8d7O_0&sig=ACfU3U1ipKbS1lfts6IE47vsziCTpvjzcA&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDmIbYtYbnAhXQHM0KHeNiBUYQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22said%20to%20have%20used%20to%22&f=false

Not by a native speaker. Above on that page you can see, "His reference
to the fact that such of people as does not conceal secrets and rather
goes about with calumnies should be produced out of fornication is
elicited from the statement of Allah Almighty: "Violent (and cruel),
with all that, base-born."

Has "calumny" been in general use outside Shakespeare quotes for the
past few centuries?

Yes, in Private Eye, UK political satire, legal defamation cases.



https://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Parliamentary-Scandals-Centuries-
Innuendo/dp/1861057369

"Great Parliamentary Scandals, five centuries of calumny, smear and
innuendo".

quote "Scandalously it's been business as usual in parliament despite
Tony Blair's promise of a new dawn over Britain in 1997. Conmen, secret
home loans, walks on the wild side, liars, ridiculously expensive
wallpaper and a jailed peer-cum-celebrated author have joined the
prostitutes, gropers, shady share dealers, rent boys and Soviet spies
that have been such a colourful feature of politics for five centuries.
In this comprehensively updated edition of the bestselling 'Great
Parliamentary Scandals', Matthew Parris and Kevin Maguire shine an
entertaining and highly revealing light into the murky underworld of
British parliamentary life, exposing the low side of high office"

Janet

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by g***@gmail.com
“The two claimed to have used to counterfeit currency to obtain drugs
and buy electronics on Craigslist.”
https://5newsonline.com/2012/10/24/river-valley-couple-accused-printing-counterfeit-money/

That's a good one. (I wonder why I didn't see it in my search just now,
though.)

Shirley, a typo for "The two claimed to have used counterfeit currency"?

I don't know if it's quite Shirley, but now that you mention it, it
does seem more likely than not. Thanks for pointing that out.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by g***@gmail.com
"She was said to have used to carry secrets and go about with calumnies.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=hiBLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=%22said+to+have+used+to%22&source=bl&ots=BBdg8d7O_0&sig=ACfU3U1ipKbS1lfts6IE47vsziCTpvjzcA&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDmIbYtYbnAhXQHM0KHeNiBUYQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22said%20to%20have%20used%20to%22&f=false

Not by a native speaker. Above on that page you can see, "His reference
to the fact that such of people as does not conceal secrets and rather
goes about with calumnies should be produced out of fornication is
elicited from the statement of Allah Almighty: "Violent (and cruel),
with all that, base-born."

Has "calumny" been in general use outside Shakespeare quotes for the
past few centuries?

...

This is not an of example general use, but I think I learned it from
Yeats's "The Leaders of the Crowd", from this exact book (which is
not the /Education Manual/ of the U.S. Armed Forces Institute).

https://books.google.com/books?id=bI4nAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA128

[g***@gmail.com]

...

Post by g***@gmail.com
“The two claimed to have used to counterfeit currency to obtain drugs
and buy electronics on Craigslist.”
https://5newsonline.com/2012/10/24/river-valley-couple-accused-printing-counterfeit-money/

That's a good one. (I wonder why I didn't see it in my search just now,
though.)

Post by g***@gmail.com
"She was said to have used to carry secrets and go about with calumnies.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=hiBLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA255&lpg=PA255&dq=%22said+to+have+used+to%22&source=bl&ots=BBdg8d7O_0&sig=ACfU3U1ipKbS1lfts6IE47vsziCTpvjzcA&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDmIbYtYbnAhXQHM0KHeNiBUYQ6AEwAHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22said%20to%20have%20used%20to%22&f=false

Not by a native speaker. Above on that page you can see, "His reference
to the fact that such of people as does not conceal secrets and rather
goes about with calumnies should be produced out of fornication is
elicited from the statement of Allah Almighty: "Violent (and cruel),
with all that, base-born."

Post by g***@gmail.com
“Mbah Dipo is said to have used to be the caretaker of Mount Semeru . . .”
https://nusadaily.com/en/culture/the-eternal-mystery-of-mount-semeru.html

Not by a native speaker. The article begins, "On the coast of Java
Gunung Semeru is arguably the most haunted. Apart from its towering
height, the mountain is still active. At any time can spray volcanic
ash."

Post by g***@gmail.com
“Fred claimed to have used to perform illegal abortions . . .”

Maybe you didn't give the link because you noticed that wasn't the
meaning in question. From a Google result, "...reported Fred to the
authorities on several occasions after having been shown both surgical
instruments Fred claimed to have used to perform illegal abortions..."
(Or maybe because Google mostly finds the passage on inaccessible sites
and porn sites.)

It was for the latter reason. From what I could tell, the sentence began
with "Fred claimed . . ." I wasn't aware that it, too, was part of a
relative clause. When one searches for combinations like "said to have
used to," one finds oneself in a sea of irrelevant relative clauses.

I was searching for exceptions. I'm determined to find some from native speakers. You have discredited all my examples as I would have done so
myself if I had been opposed to the grammatical construction purportedly
being exemplified.

In the meantime, what do you folks think of this? In the example below,
isn't "seems to have" elliptical for "seems to have used to smoke"? It
would seem perverse to claim that it's elliptical for "smoked," and still
more perverse to claim that B's response is ungrammatical, wouldn't it?

A: Did he use(d) to smoke?
B: I can't say for sure, but he seems to have. He has a lot of ashtrays,
lighters, and empty cartons of cigarettes in his garage.

Post by g***@gmail.com
or if he was, he skipped the matter of usage, in favor of some weird hypothetical.

?
--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

[examples of "to have used to"]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
“Fred claimed to have used to perform illegal abortions . . .”

Maybe you didn't give the link because you noticed that wasn't the
meaning in question. From a Google result, "...reported Fred to the
authorities on several occasions after having been shown both surgical
instruments Fred claimed to have used to perform illegal abortions..."
(Or maybe because Google mostly finds the passage on inaccessible sites
and porn sites.)

It was for the latter reason. From what I could tell, the sentence began
with "Fred claimed . . ." I wasn't aware that it, too, was part of a
relative clause. When one searches for combinations like "said to have
used to," one finds oneself in a sea of irrelevant relative clauses.

No doubt.

By the way, that Fred was the British serial murderer Fred West.

Post by g***@gmail.com
I was searching for exceptions. I'm determined to find some from native speakers.

You might, but at some point the difficulty of finding them might tell
you something.

Post by g***@gmail.com
You have discredited all my examples as I would have done so
myself if I had been opposed to the grammatical construction purportedly
being exemplified.

Actually PTD got one of them.

Post by g***@gmail.com
In the meantime, what do you folks think of this? In the example below,
isn't "seems to have" elliptical for "seems to have used to smoke"? It
would seem perverse to claim that it's elliptical for "smoked," and still
more perverse to claim that B's response is ungrammatical, wouldn't it?
A: Did he use(d) to smoke?
B: I can't say for sure, but he seems to have. He has a lot of ashtrays,
lighters, and empty cartons of cigarettes in his garage.

...

I'd say it's elliptical for "he seems to have smoked". People often
ellipt (?) a different verb form from the one they're referring to.

"I never thought he'd turn himself into a shooter but he has." (A
basketball player named Kenny Goins.)

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Jerry Friedman
[examples of "to have used to"]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by g***@gmail.com
“Fred claimed to have used to perform illegal abortions . . .”

Maybe you didn't give the link because you noticed that wasn't the
meaning in question. From a Google result, "...reported Fred to the
authorities on several occasions after having been shown both surgical
instruments Fred claimed to have used to perform illegal abortions..."
(Or maybe because Google mostly finds the passage on inaccessible sites
and porn sites.)

It was for the latter reason. From what I could tell, the sentence began
with "Fred claimed . . ." I wasn't aware that it, too, was part of a
relative clause. When one searches for combinations like "said to have
used to," one finds oneself in a sea of irrelevant relative clauses.

No doubt.
By the way, that Fred was the British serial murderer Fred West.

Post by g***@gmail.com
I was searching for exceptions. I'm determined to find some from native speakers.

You might, but at some point the difficulty of finding them might tell
you something.

It might, but I wonder what that something will be. I doubt it will
be the conclusion that such sentences are ungrammatical, because
they continue to sound grammatical to me (perhaps not dazzlingly
wonderful, but grammatical), and I am a native speaker of English.
Consider the following sentences:

(A) *He seems to use to smoke.
(B) *He seems to used to smoke.
(C) He seems to have used to smoke.

Wouldn't you say that (C) is the only sentence of those three
that comes close to being grammatical, even if you refuse to join
me in going all the way by according (C) fully grammatical status?
Consider, too, that the perfect is not incompatible with semi-modal
"used to" insofar as the past perfect is sometimes found with it.

(D) He said that he had used to smoke.
(E) He hadn't used to be such a jerk. That marked the turning point.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by g***@gmail.com
You have discredited all my examples as I would have done so
myself if I had been opposed to the grammatical construction purportedly
being exemplified.

Actually PTD got one of them.

Post by g***@gmail.com
In the meantime, what do you folks think of this? In the example below,
isn't "seems to have" elliptical for "seems to have used to smoke"? It
would seem perverse to claim that it's elliptical for "smoked," and still
more perverse to claim that B's response is ungrammatical, wouldn't it?
A: Did he use(d) to smoke?
B: I can't say for sure, but he seems to have. He has a lot of ashtrays,
lighters, and empty cartons of cigarettes in his garage.

...
I'd say it's elliptical for "he seems to have smoked". People often
ellipt (?) a different verb form from the one they're referring to.
"I never thought he'd turn himself into a shooter but he has." (A
basketball player named Kenny Goins.)
--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Jerry Friedman
[examples of "to have used to"]

Post by g***@gmail.com
When one searches for combinations like "said to have
used to," one finds oneself in a sea of irrelevant relative clauses.

No doubt.
By the way, that Fred was the British serial murderer Fred West.

Post by g***@gmail.com
I was searching for exceptions. I'm determined to find some from native speakers.

You might, but at some point the difficulty of finding them might tell
you something.

It might, but I wonder what that something will be. I doubt it will
be the conclusion that such sentences are ungrammatical, because
they continue to sound grammatical to me (perhaps not dazzlingly
wonderful, but grammatical), and I am a native speaker of English.

The usual expression in that circumstance was "Not in my dialect."

Post by g***@gmail.com
(A) *He seems to use to smoke.
(B) *He seems to used to smoke.

Those are the same sentence. There is no agreed-upon spelling for "useta."

Post by g***@gmail.com
(C) He seems to have used to smoke.
Wouldn't you say that (C) is the only sentence of those three
that comes close to being grammatical, even if you refuse to join
me in going all the way by according (C) fully grammatical status?

It's less worse, as we also useta say.

Post by g***@gmail.com
Consider, too, that the perfect is not incompatible with semi-modal
"used to" insofar as the past perfect is sometimes found with it.
(D) He said that he had used to smoke.
(E) He hadn't used to be such a jerk. That marked the turning point.

Those are somewhat ok. Should be (e) He didn't useta be such a jerk.
How do you feel about "He hadn't useta been such a jerk"?

Maybe you've simply tangled yourself up in sequence-of-tenses messes.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

[ … ]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Pat Durkin
So you have a bet going on and are desperate to win it? You are wrong,

There's no bet. I'm asserting a matter of fact, about which I am correct.

If you're so certain it's a fact, why are you wasting your time asking
for opinions?

Post by g***@gmail.com
for (b) in both examples is not correct. Your linguistics professor was
not answering the question you are asking here, or if he was, he
skipped the matter of usage, in favor of some weird hypothetical.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ … ]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Pat Durkin
So you have a bet going on and are desperate to win it? You are wrong,

There's no bet. I'm asserting a matter of fact, about which I am correct.

If you're so certain it's a fact, why are you wasting your time asking
for opinions?

I started asking myself the same thing right after the anticipated
pooh-poohing began, haha. I was hoping someone would be brave enough
to buck the majority opinion of the alpha members for the honor of
pure, untainted, native-speaking intuition about a special case,
that I might be provided with extra-subjective confirmation. :)

(P.S. Special thanks to David Kleinecke.)

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by g***@gmail.com
for (b) in both examples is not correct. Your linguistics professor was
not answering the question you are asking here, or if he was, he
skipped the matter of usage, in favor of some weird hypothetical.

--
athel

[Peter Moylan]

I was hoping someone would be brave enough to buck the majority
opinion of the alpha members ...

How often do we see someone express an opinion here, only to have
someone else say "I disagree"? Pretty much all the time. This newsgroup
does not have a tradition of deferring to someone of higher status. In
fact, one of the strengths of the group is that, for any proposition
that is advanced, we'll get to see the arguments both for and against.

I'd like to think that we do withdraw gracefully when shown to be wrong.
And we do accept that a statement from an expert carries more weight
than the opinion of a non-expert. (Something that many politicians never
manage to learn.) But those cases are not the same as being cowed by
others. We just don't see many examples of people backing off when the
majority are against them.

Besides, do you think that there would be any agreement on who are the
alpha members?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Spains Harden

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

They are the sort of language you might expect in dialect or in
uneducated speech - they are not "fine".

I got the same sort of replies here when I asked about
sentences like "Having used to smoke, he occasionally
craves a cigarette." Everybody here told me it was
ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I mentioned
the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed
right away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.
That's all I'm waiting for here, for someone to admit to
the truth of this double negative, that the (b) sentences
are _not_ _un_grammatical. I have never used such sentences.
To my knowledge, no one does. But it doesn't follow that
they are ungrammatical, that if someone used them they wouldn't
be grammatical.
The generalization I am working on, and believe in the truth of,
regardless of how the idea will be poo-pooed here,

Usually "pooh-poohed", I believe.

Post by g***@gmail.com
is that in
nonfinite contexts (in participial or infinitival clauses)
"used to" can grammatically, and in standard English, be used
after "have" as a perfect auxiliary. In finite contexts, by contrast,
it is ungrammatical in modern English: *"He has used to live there."

Maybe it would help if you said what you mean by "grammatical".
To me, if no one ever uses a construction, it's ungrammatical.
Some grammarians may have forgotten to have a rule forbidding it
(because it's so strange it never occurred to them), but that's
a (very minor) oversight on their part.

Also, to me, "ungrammatical" is the exact opposite of "grammatical",
so "not ungrammatical" is the same as "grammatical".

Hey, "It's so strange that it never occurred to them" is ambiguous
(except for those who don't use "so" to mean something like "very").

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Spains Harden

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

They are the sort of language you might expect in dialect or in
uneducated speech - they are not "fine".

I got the same sort of replies here when I asked about
sentences like "Having used to smoke, he occasionally
craves a cigarette." Everybody here told me it was
ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I mentioned
the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed
right away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.
That's all I'm waiting for here, for someone to admit to
the truth of this double negative, that the (b) sentences
are _not_ _un_grammatical. I have never used such sentences.
To my knowledge, no one does. But it doesn't follow that
they are ungrammatical, that if someone used them they wouldn't
be grammatical.
The generalization I am working on, and believe in the truth of,
regardless of how the idea will be poo-pooed here,

Usually "pooh-poohed", I believe.

Post by g***@gmail.com
is that in
nonfinite contexts (in participial or infinitival clauses)
"used to" can grammatically, and in standard English, be used
after "have" as a perfect auxiliary. In finite contexts, by contrast,
it is ungrammatical in modern English: *"He has used to live there."

Maybe it would help if you said what you mean by "grammatical".

I understand a phrase which is understandable to native speakers
of a language and which is recognizable to those speakers as a
phrase of that language to be a grammatical phrase in that language.

Post by Jerry Friedman
To me, if no one ever uses a construction, it's ungrammatical.

Some people have used "to have used to."

Post by Jerry Friedman
Some grammarians may have forgotten to have a rule forbidding it
(because it's so strange it never occurred to them), but that's
a (very minor) oversight on their part.

Or maybe "used to" has never been subjected to a thorough syntactic
analysis. I have searched far and wide, and that is the conclusion
I have come to. Nobody has sought out the strange cases. "Used to"
has largely been neglected, and this is a major oversight, one which I
intend to rectify. Calling it a "semi modal" is not a satisfying analysis.

Post by Jerry Friedman
Also, to me, "ungrammatical" is the exact opposite of "grammatical",
so "not ungrammatical" is the same as "grammatical".
Hey, "It's so strange that it never occurred to them" is ambiguous
(except for those who don't use "so" to mean something like "very").
--
Jerry Friedman

[David Kleinecke]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Or maybe "used to" has never been subjected to a thorough syntactic
analysis. I have searched far and wide, and that is the conclusion
I have come to. Nobody has sought out the strange cases. "Used to"
has largely been neglected, and this is a major oversight, one which I
intend to rectify. Calling it a "semi modal" is not a satisfying analysis.

Have fun with the modals.

My analysis leads me to postulate two modal operators - PRESENT and
PAST - and to require every finite verb phrase to begin with a modal.

These operators act of the following component. For example
PAST go -> went
There are more operators involved in the complete analysis - FIRST,
THIRD, PERFECT, PROGRESSIVE, PASSIVE and maybe NOT and QUERY.

The "to" prepost patterns like a modal but makes nominals not
verbals. The "to" of "use(d) to/a" might be an exception but
it could be a marked infinitive. So we might have a modal
"use(d) to" or a phrase like "PAST use (to live here)".

I'm still working on these questions.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by g***@gmail.com
Or maybe "used to" has never been subjected to a thorough syntactic
analysis. I have searched far and wide, and that is the conclusion
I have come to. Nobody has sought out the strange cases. "Used to"
has largely been neglected, and this is a major oversight, one which I
intend to rectify. Calling it a "semi modal" is not a satisfying analysis.

Have fun with the modals.
My analysis leads me to postulate two modal operators - PRESENT and
PAST - and to require every finite verb phrase to begin with a modal.
These operators act of the following component. For example
PAST go -> went

That's pure Son-of-Chomskyism! The sort of thing the Generative
Semanticists were doing in the 60s. (They took off from *Syntactic
Structures*, saying you could do that sort of reification with
semantics as well as syntax.)

Post by David Kleinecke
There are more operators involved in the complete analysis - FIRST,
THIRD, PERFECT, PROGRESSIVE, PASSIVE and maybe NOT and QUERY.
The "to" prepost patterns like a modal but makes nominals not
verbals. The "to" of "use(d) to/a" might be an exception but
it could be a marked infinitive. So we might have a modal
"use(d) to" or a phrase like "PAST use (to live here)".
I'm still working on these questions.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by g***@gmail.com
Or maybe "used to" has never been subjected to a thorough syntactic
analysis. I have searched far and wide, and that is the conclusion
I have come to. Nobody has sought out the strange cases. "Used to"
has largely been neglected, and this is a major oversight, one which I
intend to rectify. Calling it a "semi modal" is not a satisfying analysis.

Have fun with the modals.
My analysis leads me to postulate two modal operators - PRESENT and
PAST - and to require every finite verb phrase to begin with a modal.
These operators act of the following component. For example
PAST go -> went

That's pure Son-of-Chomskyism! The sort of thing the Generative
Semanticists were doing in the 60s. (They took off from *Syntactic
Structures*, saying you could do that sort of reification with
semantics as well as syntax.)

So far as I know none of the Chomskyans ever used operators.

But, of course, operators can do much of what Chomsky wanted
transformations to do. But I do not recall the Chomskyans
advancing a good analysis of why English verbs took -s after
third person singular subjects (which is what THIRD does).

As I see the history "Syntactic Structures" was a reasonable
contribution that raised some interesting question while
advancing some rather deplorable answers to them. By "Aspects"
the house of cards had collapsed and they had started over.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by g***@gmail.com
Or maybe "used to" has never been subjected to a thorough syntactic
analysis. I have searched far and wide, and that is the conclusion
I have come to. Nobody has sought out the strange cases. "Used to"
has largely been neglected, and this is a major oversight, one which I
intend to rectify. Calling it a "semi modal" is not a satisfying analysis.

Have fun with the modals.
My analysis leads me to postulate two modal operators - PRESENT and
PAST - and to require every finite verb phrase to begin with a modal.
These operators act of the following component. For example
PAST go -> went

That's pure Son-of-Chomskyism! The sort of thing the Generative
Semanticists were doing in the 60s. (They took off from *Syntactic
Structures*, saying you could do that sort of reification with
semantics as well as syntax.)

So far as I know none of the Chomskyans ever used operators.

My teachers called them "higher predicates."

Post by David Kleinecke
But, of course, operators can do much of what Chomsky wanted
transformations to do. But I do not recall the Chomskyans
advancing a good analysis of why English verbs took -s after
third person singular subjects (which is what THIRD does).

"why"? "WHY"?? You must remember Martin Joos pointing out that
"Children want explanations, and there is a child in each of us;
descriptivism makes a virtue of not pampering that child."
(RiL [1]: 96)

The only "why" is the history of Indo-European.

Post by David Kleinecke
As I see the history "Syntactic Structures" was a reasonable
contribution that raised some interesting question while
advancing some rather deplorable answers to them. By "Aspects"
the house of cards had collapsed and they had started over.

And far from the last time!

In SS, "go + ed --> went" was handled by a very low level phonological
rule; he had done that whole mechanism in the M.A. thesis *The Norpho-
phonemics of Modern Hebrew* (1951; the version published by Garland
was rewritten that summer and became the version that circulated in
samizdat, but, at least in 1970, the Penn Libraries didn't mind sending
out the original blue-ditto version on InterLibrary Loan. It's not
impossible that by now it's faded to nothing, but my photocopy, made
on glossy paper on one of the earliest copiers involving noxious
chemicals, has survived well.)

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by g***@gmail.com
Or maybe "used to" has never been subjected to a thorough syntactic
analysis. I have searched far and wide, and that is the conclusion
I have come to. Nobody has sought out the strange cases. "Used to"
has largely been neglected, and this is a major oversight, one which I
intend to rectify. Calling it a "semi modal" is not a satisfying analysis.

Have fun with the modals.
My analysis leads me to postulate two modal operators - PRESENT and
PAST - and to require every finite verb phrase to begin with a modal.
These operators act of the following component. For example
PAST go -> went

That's pure Son-of-Chomskyism! The sort of thing the Generative
Semanticists were doing in the 60s. (They took off from *Syntactic
Structures*, saying you could do that sort of reification with
semantics as well as syntax.)

So far as I know none of the Chomskyans ever used operators.

My teachers called them "higher predicates."

That's a new term to me and one Google doesn't seem to recognize
either. I am unable to imagine how something with that name could
function as an operator.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke
But, of course, operators can do much of what Chomsky wanted
transformations to do. But I do not recall the Chomskyans
advancing a good analysis of why English verbs took -s after
third person singular subjects (which is what THIRD does).

"why"? "WHY"?? You must remember Martin Joos pointing out that
"Children want explanations, and there is a child in each of us;
descriptivism makes a virtue of not pampering that child."
(RiL [1]: 96)
The only "why" is the history of Indo-European.

OK - I meant by "why" "how can one parse"? Altogether too much in
language has no why except history and is, at its core, arbitrary.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke
As I see the history "Syntactic Structures" was a reasonable
contribution that raised some interesting question while
advancing some rather deplorable answers to them. By "Aspects"
the house of cards had collapsed and they had started over.

And far from the last time!
In SS, "go + ed --> went" was handled by a very low level phonological
rule; he had done that whole mechanism in the M.A. thesis *The Norpho-
phonemics of Modern Hebrew* (1951; the version published by Garland
was rewritten that summer and became the version that circulated in
samizdat, but, at least in 1970, the Penn Libraries didn't mind sending
out the original blue-ditto version on InterLibrary Loan. It's not
impossible that by now it's faded to nothing, but my photocopy, made
on glossy paper on one of the earliest copiers involving noxious
chemicals, has survived well.)

Chomsky was fascinated by string processing (and will most likely
be only remembered for his string processing results). In his hands
"go + ed --> went" is a real string action - the string "go" (two
characters) is concatenated with the string "-ed" (three characters)
but then this transformation intervenes and replaces "goed" by "went".
With operators (my way) "PAST go -> "went" when all the PASTs act
as "PAST see -> "saw" and "PAST walk -> walked".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by g***@gmail.com
Or maybe "used to" has never been subjected to a thorough syntactic
analysis. I have searched far and wide, and that is the conclusion
I have come to. Nobody has sought out the strange cases. "Used to"
has largely been neglected, and this is a major oversight, one which I
intend to rectify. Calling it a "semi modal" is not a satisfying analysis.

Have fun with the modals.
My analysis leads me to postulate two modal operators - PRESENT and
PAST - and to require every finite verb phrase to begin with a modal.
These operators act of the following component. For example
PAST go -> went

That's pure Son-of-Chomskyism! The sort of thing the Generative
Semanticists were doing in the 60s. (They took off from *Syntactic
Structures*, saying you could do that sort of reification with
semantics as well as syntax.)

So far as I know none of the Chomskyans ever used operators.

My teachers called them "higher predicates."

That's a new term to me and one Google doesn't seem to recognize
either. I am unable to imagine how something with that name could
function as an operator.

They were of course for the most part not mathematicians and didn't
have that term in their active vocabulary.

I think it was Syntax & Semantics 8 that officially published many
of the most important samizdat literature of the early days -- you
may find it there.

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke
But, of course, operators can do much of what Chomsky wanted
transformations to do. But I do not recall the Chomskyans
advancing a good analysis of why English verbs took -s after
third person singular subjects (which is what THIRD does).

"why"? "WHY"?? You must remember Martin Joos pointing out that
"Children want explanations, and there is a child in each of us;
descriptivism makes a virtue of not pampering that child."
(RiL [1]: 96)
The only "why" is the history of Indo-European.

OK - I meant by "why" "how can one parse"? Altogether too much in
language has no why except history and is, at its core, arbitrary.

Affix-Hopping, of course!

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke
As I see the history "Syntactic Structures" was a reasonable
contribution that raised some interesting question while
advancing some rather deplorable answers to them. By "Aspects"
the house of cards had collapsed and they had started over.

And far from the last time!
In SS, "go + ed --> went" was handled by a very low level phonological
rule; he had done that whole mechanism in the M.A. thesis *The Norpho-
phonemics of Modern Hebrew* (1951; the version published by Garland
was rewritten that summer and became the version that circulated in
samizdat, but, at least in 1970, the Penn Libraries didn't mind sending
out the original blue-ditto version on InterLibrary Loan. It's not
impossible that by now it's faded to nothing, but my photocopy, made
on glossy paper on one of the earliest copiers involving noxious
chemicals, has survived well.)

Chomsky was fascinated by string processing (and will most likely
be only remembered for his string processing results). In his hands
"go + ed --> went" is a real string action - the string "go" (two
characters) is concatenated with the string "-ed" (three characters)
but then this transformation intervenes and replaces "goed" by "went".
With operators (my way) "PAST go -> "went" when all the PASTs act
as "PAST see -> "saw" and "PAST walk -> walked".

[RH Draney]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"why"? "WHY"?? You must remember Martin Joos pointing out that
"Children want explanations, and there is a child in each of us;
descriptivism makes a virtue of not pampering that child."
(RiL [1]: 96)
The only "why" is the history of Indo-European.

Is that the "why" that means "how come", or the "why" that means "what
for"?...r

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by RH Draney

Post by Peter T. Daniels
"why"? "WHY"?? You must remember Martin Joos pointing out that
"Children want explanations, and there is a child in each of us;
descriptivism makes a virtue of not pampering that child."
(RiL [1]: 96)
The only "why" is the history of Indo-European.

Is that the "why" that means "how come", or the "why" that means "what
for"?...r

Kinda depends on what the question was ... there's such a thing as
excessive snippage, ya know.

(Wot 'e sed: "I do not recall the Chomskyans advancing a good analysis
of why English verbs took -s after third person singular subjects."
Looks more like an Imponderable.)

[Janet]

Post by g***@gmail.com
I understand a phrase which is understandable to native speakers
of a language and which is recognizable to those speakers as a
phrase of that language to be a grammatical phrase in that language.

Yer bum's oot the windae.

Janet

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Janet

Post by g***@gmail.com
I understand a phrase which is understandable to native speakers
of a language and which is recognizable to those speakers as a
phrase of that language to be a grammatical phrase in that language.

Yer bum's oot the windae.
Janet

<smile>

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Spains Harden

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

They are the sort of language you might expect in dialect or in
uneducated speech - they are not "fine".

I got the same sort of replies here when I asked about
sentences like "Having used to smoke, he occasionally
craves a cigarette." Everybody here told me it was
ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I mentioned
the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed
right away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.
That's all I'm waiting for here, for someone to admit to
the truth of this double negative, that the (b) sentences
are _not_ _un_grammatical. I have never used such sentences.
To my knowledge, no one does. But it doesn't follow that
they are ungrammatical, that if someone used them they wouldn't
be grammatical.
The generalization I am working on, and believe in the truth of,
regardless of how the idea will be poo-pooed here,

Usually "pooh-poohed", I believe.

Post by g***@gmail.com
is that in
nonfinite contexts (in participial or infinitival clauses)
"used to" can grammatically, and in standard English, be used
after "have" as a perfect auxiliary. In finite contexts, by contrast,
it is ungrammatical in modern English: *"He has used to live there."

Maybe it would help if you said what you mean by "grammatical".

I understand a phrase which is understandable to native speakers
of a language and which is recognizable to those speakers as a
phrase of that language to be a grammatical phrase in that language.

Post by Jerry Friedman
To me, if no one ever uses a construction, it's ungrammatical.

Some people have used "to have used to."

One native speaker so far, out of all of Google.

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Jerry Friedman
Some grammarians may have forgotten to have a rule forbidding it
(because it's so strange it never occurred to them), but that's
a (very minor) oversight on their part.

Or maybe "used to" has never been subjected to a thorough syntactic
analysis. I have searched far and wide, and that is the conclusion
I have come to. Nobody has sought out the strange cases. "Used to"
has largely been neglected, and this is a major oversight, one which I
intend to rectify. Calling it a "semi modal" is not a satisfying analysis.

...

I'd say that's a great project. However, since "to have used to" is so
rare and since the native speakers you surveyed here don't recognize it
as English (unlike the linguist you talked to), I think you could call
it very, very marginal at best. If you're going to consider causes, the
cause of that marginality might be interesting.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Spains Harden

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

They are the sort of language you might expect in dialect or in
uneducated speech - they are not "fine".

I got the same sort of replies here when I asked about
sentences like "Having used to smoke, he occasionally
craves a cigarette." Everybody here told me it was
ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I mentioned
the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed
right away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.

And you didn't say it wasn't Paul Postal.

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:33:06 -0800, grammarian1976 wrote:

[...]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Everybody
here told me it was ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I
mentioned the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed right
away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.

Well, there's your problem right away: a professor of linguistics.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Eric Walker
[...]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Everybody
here told me it was ungrammatical (or said as much), whereas, when I
mentioned the sentence to a professor of linguistics, he agreed right
away that it worked -- that it was not ungrammatical.

Well, there's your problem right away: a professor of linguistics.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

Whereas Mister Cordiality prefers to take his apodictic statements from
the high school simplification of a reference grammar compiled by a pre-
modern philologist almost a century ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Oliver_Curme

[Ross]

Post by Spains Harden

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

They are the sort of language you might expect in dialect or in
uneducated speech - they are not "fine".

"Dialect", "uneducated speech"??!! You will search
a long time in dialect or uneducated speech before
you find an Accusative + Infinitive; and as for
Passive of Accusative + Infinitive, fergit it!

Now if you dropped the "have" in (1b), I can imagine
a colloquial speaker saying "He claims ta useta live
there", but that would probably be an attempted
upgrade of "He claims he useta live there".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Ross

Post by Spains Harden

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

They are the sort of language you might expect in dialect or in
uneducated speech - they are not "fine".

"Dialect", "uneducated speech"??!! You will search
a long time in dialect or uneducated speech before
you find an Accusative + Infinitive; and as for
Passive of Accusative + Infinitive, fergit it!
Now if you dropped the "have" in (1b), I can imagine
a colloquial speaker saying "He claims ta useta live
there", but that would probably be an attempted
upgrade of "He claims he useta live there".

Maybe "He claims to useta of lived there," with a more conceivable
order of the components.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

I'm a native speaker, and I like to think I'm honest, but I'm not a
member of that group.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

I'm a native speaker, and I like to think I'm honest, but I'm not a
member of that group.

+1. I can't imagine a native speaker saying the (b) sentences. I'm
with Eric.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Katy Jennison

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

I'm a native speaker, and I like to think I'm honest, but I'm not a
member of that group.

+1. I can't imagine a native speaker saying the (b) sentences. I'm
with Eric.
--
Katy Jennison

I agree with Eric and PTD. I, of course, would understand if I heard
such a sentence. To parse what I heard I would assume what I would
call a stutter. The speaker started to say
He claims to have lived there.
then changed in midutterance (after claims) to
He claims [that he] used to live there.
but made the cut too late.

I would not expect to see it in writing.

PS: A stutter is a kind of performance error.

[Janet]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

No, I don't.

Janet

[Ross]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

Post by Eric Walker
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

I'm pretty honest, but I don't think they are "fine".
In fact I think they're nice illustrations of things
that "used to" can't do. You might conceivably see
them in written English by someone who refuses to accept
those limitations. But I think they're at the limits
of awkwardness, where it turns into ungrammaticality.

[Ross]

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Eric Walker

Post by g***@gmail.com
(1a) He claims that he used to live there.
(1b) He claims to have used to live there.
(2a) It is believed that he used to live there.
(2b) He is believed to have used to live there.
Is anyone especially bothered by the (b) sentences, or can we judge them
to be grammatical, if a bit unusual?

The (b) sentences are not in English.

I am sure that if some of you are honest you will, assuming
you are native speakers, agree with me that they are fine.

Post by Eric Walker
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

I'm pretty honest, but I don't think they are "fine".
In fact I think they're nice illustrations of things
that "used to" can't do. You might conceivably see
them in written English by someone who refuses to accept
those limitations. But I think they're at the limits
of awkwardness, where it turns into ungrammaticality.