The expressions "can't even", "use to", "used to"

[tashirosgt]

Is there a good explanation of the expression "can't even", as in "He can't even spell the name of the chemical, much less synthesize it"? How did that use of the word "even" originate?

It's common (in the USA) to hear people say things like "I used to jog every day" or even "I use to jog every day", meaning "I once jogged every day". Also people say things like "I am used to drinking coffee every morning", meaning "I am accustomed to drinking coffee every morning". Did the use of "used to" originate in any way that is connected with less idiomatic usages of the phrase? - such as "A hammer is used to drive nails".

[Kaptain K]

The word "even" is added as a "minimum limiter".

[grant hutchison]

The adverbial use of even has a long and complicated history.
We can get to Kaptain K's "minumum limiter" by a series of steps from the adjectival use of even meaning "smooth, regular, aligned".

1) There is an old usage, common in the [King James] Bible, in which even is used in the place we'd use "exactly" or "just": "Treat him even as you would treat a child of your own." (The sense of regularity and alignment are still evident.)
2) Then there is another old usage, with the sense of alignment still present, in which even means "right up to" or "as far as": "He kept watch even until midnight." (And now we get a sense of a limiting case.)
3) From there it's just a hop and a skip to the "limiting case" use of even in the OP.
As the OED puts it, this usage is "[i]ntimating that the sentence expresses an extreme case of a more general proposition implied". In the OP, the sentence sets a limit on all the things the subject cannot achieve with regard to the chemical.

With regard to use, the usage "I use to jog" is just an error, arising from people writing what they think they hear. The connection between "I used to jog" and "a hammer is used to drive nails" is the idea of an accustomed or standard activity.

Grant Hutchison

[danscope]

contribution recalled

[Gillianren]

That sounds . . . unlikely.

[danscope]

done

[HenrikOlsen]

Your use of quotation marks is most confusing.

The saying " Used to " is extrapolated from " He was " used to" farming. He was well acquainted in that profession. He "used" his talents
in that application. From there ,it is a small leap to common usage index to say " He is used to sailing, his own cooking, etc etc.
These expressions creep into the vocabulary slowly but take root easily, saying much with efficiency. We are "used to it".

I tried marking the quotes red as indicated by the pairs of marks and ended up really confused.
It may be the computer programmer who breaks through here.

Incidentally, I guess there's not really much doubt about the "If". I'll be in the corner with a tub of popcorn.

[Gillianren]

If you read " older" books, you will feel the style of dialog. It feels like a corruption of " Accustomed" .

Not to me, it doesn't. It feels like a different word usage which doesn't make sense as a corruption of "accustomed."

[Noclevername]

I used to know what it meant, but I got used to the newer usage pretty quickly. Language changes with common usage, or we'd all be speaking early Neanderthal. It's all about the context, baby*.

* Using the word "baby" idiomatically. I do not believe an actual infant would be posting on this board.

[01101001]

An opinion: Online Etymology Dictionary:

Verbal phrase used to "formerly did or was" (as in I used to love her) represents a construction attested from c.1300, and common from c.1400, but now surviving only in past tense form. The pronunciation is affected by the t- of to.

[DrRocket]

I used to know what it meant, but I got used to the newer usage pretty quickly. Language changes with common usage, or we'd all be speaking early Neanderthal. It's all about the context, baby*.

* Using the word "baby" idiomatically. I do not believe an actual infant would be posting on this board.

So, you are trying to pick up Gillianren, using the forum as a medium ? I guess we need to get used to people using the board in that usually unused mode.

[Jens]

It seems that some people can't even write a post without using some form of "use".

[SeanF]

It seems that some people can't even write a post without using some form of "use".

It didn't used to be that way.

An opinion: Online Etymology Dictionary:

Verbal phrase used to "formerly did or was" (as in I used to love her) represents a construction attested from c.1300, and common from c.1400, but now surviving only in past tense form. The pronunciation is affected by the t- of to.

Wait a second - now surviving only in past tense form? How would "formerly did or was" ever be used in a tense other than past?

[Fazor]

How'd I miss this thread? Gillian corrects me on 'use to' -> 'used to' occasionally (and I'm thankful for it, as it's a bad habit I'd like to remedy) and it arises just as Grant said -- when spoken, the 'ed' ending of 'used' and the 't' beginning of 'to' often get lost as two distinct sounds, which makes me visualize 'use to'.

As for 'even' I have nothing to add other than this minor rant: The intro to 'Throwdown', one of Bobby Flay's show's, has the line, "I might win. I might even lose." That bugs me to no end! The use of the word 'even' in that context typically denotes something that is . . . surprising? unlikely? unexpected? whatever . . . but the 'might' in the first part already suggests that winning is not a sure thing. It makes the 'even' completely unnecessary, and for whatever reason, it annoys me!

[NEOWatcher]

. . . but the 'might' in the first part already suggests that winning is not a sure thing. It makes the 'even' completely unnecessary, and for whatever reason, it annoys me!

In this case, I agree. But; what do you feel about multiple "mights"?
I might choose green, I might choose red, I might even choose puce.

[Fazor]

In this case, I agree. But; what do you feel about multiple "mights"?
I might choose green, I might choose red, I might even choose puce.

That doesn't bother me as much; I perceive it as stressing that something is uncertain. The reason the use of 'even' in the 'Throwdown' is because I perceive the use of 'even' in that fashion to mean it's a remote or surprising thing. Like, "I couldn't believe that he cleaned his room! He even vacuumed!" (Something my mom would have surely exclaimed, had I ever cleaned my room and vacuumed). Saying "He might not vacuum his room, but he might even vacuum his room" just sounds ridiculous to me.

[Gillianren]

Since I don't think the show allows ties, there are two options. He can win or he can lose. The way Fazor's describing it, it sounds as though what he's saying is, "Well, I suppose it's possible that I won't win. Technically." But then, I don't like Bobby Flay and am biased.

[Fazor]

"Well, I suppose it's possible that I won't win. Technically." But then, I don't like Bobby Flay and am biased.

I don't dislike Flay as much as many people seem to, though I'm not a huge fan either. But even if you take it as "I'm sooo good but I could maybe even lose one" (which is sort of how I view the statement too), the first part of that is unecessary. Just say something like "I'll challenge these cooks to a throwdown! I might even lose." Not ". . . to a throwdown. I might win; I might even lose."

And maybe there's nothing wrong with it, but it sounds clunky and idiotic to me. I [even] cringe every time I hear it.

[NEOWatcher]

...it sounds as though what he's saying is...

Yes; But I think the word "even" is out of place. In fact, I even* think "even" is out of place for any 2 item list. Even if the show did allow ties, it just sounds awkward without mentioning the (in this case, 3rd) possibility of the tie.

* couldn't resist.

[Gillianren]

True. A single option, possibly. A multiple-item list, assuredly. But out of two? Somebody at the Food Network has a tin ear.

[01101001]

Wait a second - now surviving only in past tense form? How would "formerly did or was" ever be used in a tense other than past?

I took the text (link) as giving the current meaning (involving formerly) and explaining that it comes from a construction that was expressed in both present and past tenses, for instance, present: I use to love her, and past: I used to love her.

[Jens]

And maybe there's nothing wrong with it, but it sounds clunky and idiotic to me. I [even] cringe every time I hear it.

I agree totally that there's something wrong with it. But I also have difficulty explaining it.

I might get injured. I might even die. Sounds completely reasonable. The first is likely, the second less likely.

I might eat it. I might even not eat it. Sounds totally ridiculous. I sounds like you might both eat it and not eat it.

I think that's the problem. If the guy says, "I might win. I might even lose." It sounds like he might do both.

[Gillianren]

And with the "I might get injured. I might even die," one is an extension of the other. The odds of dying are less, but they are an extension of the odds of getting injured. You can't die in that scenario without getting injured. You cannot, however, both win and lose.

[Doodler]

Wait a second - now surviving only in past tense form? How would "formerly did or was" ever be used in a tense other than past?

"presently do or would "? "may yet or will"? I think "formerly" there is just a establishing tense for the explanation of that example.

[SeanF]

I took the text (link) as giving the current meaning (involving formerly) and explaining that it comes from a construction that was expressed in both present and past tenses, for instance, present: I use to love her, and past: I used to love her.

Okay, what would be the difference between "I use to love her" and "I love her"?

[mike alexander]

"They have vilified me, they have crucified me; yes, they have even criticized me."
-Richard J. Daley

The Boss had a way with words.

[Doodler]

Okay, what would be the difference between "I use to love her" and "I love her"?

If that's the proper structure of the present tense use, then most likely that the latter came about as a colloquiallism of the former, and eventually became the accepted usage.

[01101001]

Okay, what would be the difference between "I use to love her" and "I love her"?

Now where did I put my circa-1300 English dictionary? Can't find it; I'll have to guess.

I'll go with: the difference between "I use to love her" and "I love her" then, 700 long years ago, might have been on the order of the current subtle difference between "I love her", "I do love her" and even "I am loving her". Considering the key word involved, maybe the 1300 use-version just conveyed a little flavor of "it is my practice" or "it is my custom" or "I ordinarily" or "I usually".

[SeanF]

Now where did I put my circa-1300 English dictionary? Can't find it; I'll have to guess.

I'll go with: the difference between "I use to love her" and "I love her" then, 700 long years ago, might have been on the order of the current subtle difference between "I love her", "I do love her" and even "I am loving her". Considering the key word involved, maybe the 1300 use-version just conveyed a little flavor of "it is my practice" or "it is my custom" or "I ordinarily" or "I usually".

Ah, yes, that actually makes sense. I was thinking of the difference between "I used to love her" and "I loved her" as being that the former implies that it is no longer the case, whereas the latter doesn't necessarily. But now that you mention it, I think it's an even bigger difference that "I used to lover her" implies as, you say, a practice or custom - something ongoing and not momentary.