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
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