Look at these examples to see how used to, would and the past simple are used.
They used to live in London.
I didn't use to like olives.
We would always go to the seaside for our holidays.
But one holiday we went to the mountains instead.
Try this exercise to test your grammar.
- Grammar test 1
Grammar explanation
When we talk about things in the past that are not true any more, we can do it in different ways.
Used to + infinitive
We can use used to to talk about past states that are not true any more.
We used to live in New York when I was a kid.
There didn't use to be a supermarket there. When did it open?
Did you use to have a garden?
We can also use used to to talk about past habits (repeated past actions) that don't happen any more.
I used to go swimming every Thursday when I was at school.
She used to smoke but she gave up a few years ago.
used to + infinitive should not be confused with be/get used to + -ing, which has a different meaning. The difference is covered here.
Would
We can use would to talk about repeated past actions that don't happen any more.
Every Saturday I would go on a long bike ride.
My dad would read me amazing stories every night at bedtime.
would for past habits is slightly more formal than used to. It is often used in stories. We don't normally use the negative or question form of would for past habits. Note that we can't usually use would to talk about past states.
Past simple
We can always use the past simple as an alternative to used to or would to talk about past states or habits. The main difference is that the past simple doesn't emphasise the repeated or continuous nature of the action or situation. Also, the past simple doesn't make it so clear that the thing is no longer true.
We went to the same beach every summer.
We used to go to the same beach every summer.
We would go to the same beach every summer.
If something happened only once, we must use the past simple.
I went to Egypt in 2014.
Do this exercise to test your grammar again.
- Grammar test 2
Hello, could you please help me with this sentence?
How much money did you use to spend on books every month? OR How much money did you used to spend.....? It is correct in to use did you USE or did you USED in such questions?
Thanks a lot.
Hello PavlaH,
The correct form here is 'did you use to spend'. In other words, the affirmative is 'I used to spend', the negative is 'I didn't use to spend' and the interrogative is 'did you use to spend?'.
It might help to remember that when we write 'used to', it's spelled as a regular past simple verb: we say 'You picked up the ball', 'You didn't pick up the ball' (not *'You didn't picked up') and 'Did you pick up the ball?' (not *'Did you picked up').
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello team. Could you please help me choose the correct answer? Explain, please.
- When I was young, as soon as I heard a voice, I (used to imitate - would imitate) it.
Thank you.
Hello Ahmed Imam,
I'd say you could use both 'used to imitate' and 'would imitate' in this case. The phrase 'as soon as I heard a voice' indicates a specific kind of situation that we remember and so 'would' also works here.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Team. Could you please help me? If the following sentence is correct, does it express a past habit?
- I would do fitness training.
Thank you
Hello Ahmed Imam,
I answered this question in my answer to your comment just below (26/03/2022 - 08:17).
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Team. Could you please tell me and explain whether the following sentence is correct or not? Why?
- In the past, more people would do manual work.
Thank you.
Hello Ahmed Imam,
Both 'used to' and 'would' can be used to speak about repeated actions and events in the past (e.g. while remembering what I did in the summer when I was young, 'I would do fitness training every morning' = 'I used to fitness training every morning').
Note, however, that we only use 'used to' (not 'would') to speak about past states (e.g. we can say 'I used to have weights', but not *'I would have weights' because 'have' is stative).
But when we talk about past habits that were general throughout the past -- in other words, when we're not referring to a specific time period, such as 'when I was young' or 'when I was a student', etc. -- we don't use 'would' and use 'used to' instead. In the fitness training example I gave before, doing fitness training was not something I did my whole life -- I'm thinking about the summer, i.e. a specific time period. Since I'm thinking of a specific, non-generalized time period in the past, both 'would' and 'used to' are possible.
But 'In the past, more people would do manual work' is not speaking about a specific period of time -- it's quite general. In cases such as this one, we don't use 'would' to refer to past habits. It's as if we use 'would' when we're remembering a specific time with nostalgia, like a period in our life; here, we're making a historical or sociological statement that doesn't seem to be connected to our experience at all.
Hope this helps you make sense of it.
Best wishes,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi, sirs.
I'd like to know your opinion concerning this question:
Before he retired, he ___play for Liverpool.
A] used to
B] would
I see both work as they express a past repeated action.
Hello aymanme2,
Only A is correct here. While it's true that 'would' can be used to speak about past states or habits, playing for a football club isn't presented as a past state or habit in this case due to the clause 'Before he retired'. It presents his playing as something that is no longer true.
Here I'd say the best form is actually 'he played for Liverpool' because the clause 'Before he retired' already clearly shows that he no longer plays football. But 'used to play' is fine.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Thanks a lot, sir.
Yet, I'd like to make sure that I understand.
Both 'used to & would' represent events or actions that are no longer true or taking place, right?
Is 'would' not OK for the use of time clause?
What about this sentence?
When I was young I 'used to / would' go fishing with my dad.
Pardon me, I need more clarification if you please.
Hello again aymanme2,
Yes, both 'used to' and 'would' can be used to speak about repeated actions and events in the past (e.g. while remembering what I did in the summer when I was young, 'I would go fishing with my dad' = 'I used to go fishing with my dad').
But we only use 'used to' (not 'would') to speak about past states (e.g. we can say 'I used to have a rowboat', but not *'I would have a rowboat' because 'have' is stative).
When we talk about past habits that were general throughout the past, though, we don't use 'would' and use 'used to' instead. In the fishing example I gave before, fishing with my dad was not something I did all year long, it was only for specific time periods, a few weeks each summer for a few years. Since I'm thinking of a specific, non-generalized time period in the past, both 'would' and 'used to' are possible.
But if I'm thinking about how I was a serious football player when I was young -- something I did all year for many years -- 'would' is not correct. I can say 'I used to play football' but not *'I would play football'.
Another example would be someone who smoked cigarettes regularly in the past but now does not. She could say 'I used to smoke', but not 'I would smoke' to speak about her habit. Though she could say 'I would smoke when I was studying for exams' because that's a specific situation that repeated in the past but was not all the time.
Does that make sense?
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
It does, sir.
Thanks a lot.
Have a nice day!
Hello everyone!
Is it correct to say:
"She would get used to wearing contact lenses if she tried to"
and
"They couldn't get used to living in a flat..."?
Thank you so much in advance!
Best regard!
Hello Natasa Tanasa,
Yes, both of those are grammatically correct. Well done!
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Team. Could you please help me? Is the following sentence correct using "would take"?
- During his school years, my father would take great interest in literature.
Thank you.
Hello Ahmed Imam,
Not really. 'would' can be used to talk about past habitual actions, but taking an interest in literature isn't really a habitual action -- it's more of a mental state.
Now if by 'take great interest in literature' you mean, for example, that when a new literary novel was published your father performed certain kinds of actions -- for example, going to book signings or attending discussions of the novel -- then this sentence could work because the idea of taking great interest in literature refers more to actions than a mental state.
Does that make sense?
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello team. I'm confused. Could you please help me?
In No. 1, is it correct to use "always, usually, often" with "used to + infinitive"?
In No. 2, is it correct to use "once" with "used to do"?
1- He usually used to arrive late for the training sessions when he was a member in the team.
2- I once used to read the newspaper every day. Now I don't have the time.
Thank you.
Hello Ahmed Imam,
1. Yes, you can use those adverbs with 'used to' + infinitive. 'usually used to ...' is something I'd avoid in writing because of how it sounds, but I imagine you could hear people say that in informal situations.
2. It's a little unusual to use 'once' because it essentially communicates the same idea as 'used to do', but I'm not sure I'd say it's wrong. But I would avoid using both together.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
What is the difference between I'm used to going and I'm getting used to going?
Hello Hmawe Theint,
'I'm used to going' expresses a state -- the state of being familiar with going -- and 'I'm getting used to going' expresses a process of becoming familiar with going.
Most of the time, we get used to something before we are used to it. For example, in March 2020 my children were getting used to doing their schoolwork from home. By the end of April 2020, they were used to doing their schoolwork at home.
I hope this helps.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Peter Piper,
Good question. It's because in that sentence, used to directly describes like, and like is a state, not an action. Used to is for past states or actions but would is for past actions only, so that's why would isn't correct in that sentence.
However, using would, we could say this: During that time I would spend at least two hours in the gym every day (spend = action).
Does that make sense?
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Ice12345,
Context is very important. When we use live to mean 'have a home in a place' it describes a state rather than an action. We can use it with continuous aspect when it is a temporary state (I'm living in Tokyo at the moment) but not with would for past habit.
We can use live with other meanings. For example, you can use live on to mean 'subsist' or 'maintain yourself':
With this meaning, both would and used to are possible.
How a word is used (with which meaning) is key, and that is why context is so important.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Zuu,
Good question! You could say: I would spend at least two hours ... . But I would like to spend ... doesn't work, because 'would like' has a different meaning. It's used for requesting or offering (e.g. I'd like a coffee / Would you like some coffee?), not for past repeated actions.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi jfais,
I'll try to explain :) The past simple doesn't contradict the 'no longer true' meaning. It's just that, in comparison, used to and would show that meaning more clearly and prominently than the past simple does. The past simple has various other meanings too, while used to has pretty much only this meaning, so if a speaker or writer wanted to emphasise the 'no longer true' idea and draw the listener/reader's attention to it, used to (and would) are better choices than the past simple. They convey that meaning more clearly and less ambiguously.
Does that make sense?
Jonathan
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Aryan Hozouri,
Yes, we use used to and would to describe habitual behaviour in the past which is no longer true. The difference is that while used to can be used for actions (dynamic verbs) and states (stative verbs), would can only be used for actions.
Exams should always accept any correct answer unless a particular form is specified or excluded in the rubric.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Mustafa Abdulhai,
The past simple can describe repeated events, but it does not emphasise the repetition; the focus is on the action rather than its repeated nature. For example, if I was talking about my childhood and wanted to emphasise that an activity was repeated - for example, because it was extremely irritating - then I could use a continuous form:
The simple form would not be incorrect here, but it would be a less emphatic way of expressing your irritation.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello lenniva,
Both 'would' and 'used to' can describe past habitual actions, but only 'used to' can describe a past state.
Your first sentence describes a state: the state of being employed by a science magazine, not the action of writing an article. Work for here means 'be employed by', not 'do a job for'.
Your second sentence could be correct, depending on whether you are thinking of the act of eating or the state of being or not being a vegetarian. It's really a question of context, but the safest choice is 'used to' as it can be used in both contexts.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hi Rob,
Thanks for the interesting question.
I don't think would is used here because the action is repeated. For example, you could say this:
I think the correct answer is that in certain contexts we see feelings as processes rather than fixed states. It's similar to the use of progressive aspect with feelings in sentences like 'I was getting angry' or 'I was becoming frustrated'.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Danodo,
We use would to describe typical behaviour in the past which is no longer true. It has a similar to used to, but can be used for actions and not states (used to can be used for either).
The past continuous can describe repeated actions, especially ones which are excessive or irritating in some way. The past simple can also describe repeated events if used with an adverb like always, but does not suggest excess or irritation.
I would explain your examples as follows:
A repeated action in the past which the speaker might consider a little excessive or extreme.
A repeated action in the past.
Habitual or repeated action which is no longer true.
A single action in the past.
The differences here are not stark, other than the final example which is about a single event. The speaker has choices in terms of how they wish to present the action and what they choose to emphasise.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Rolpanizum123,
I'm afraid that use of would does not look correct to me as an answer to the police officer's question. An answer in the past simple would be appropriate, I expect:
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello NIYOMUGABO Emmanuel,
We don't normally use 'would' to speak about past states. This is not only true for 'like', but also for verbs such as 'have' or 'think'.
It might also be helpful to remember that 'would like' is an extremely commonly used verb phrase in English. When you see or hear it, the vast majority of the time it will be about expressing a wish.
Hope this helps you make sense of it.
All the best,
Kirk
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Aaxz,
The verb here is would + base form [would do] followed by an infinitive of purpose [to help]. There is no past form here.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team
Hello Karan Narang,
We use used to (didn't use to) to describe habits or situations which were true in the past but are no longer true. If a person had a garden in the past and no longer has one then it is quite possible to say this:
I'm not sure it's very likely that a person would ask about themselves, however. It would suggest they can't remember their own life, which is possible but unlikely.
Peter
The LearnEnglish Team