In the English-speaking world, many people use words without a thought to its grammar. The words “ought” and “used” are two such words English speakers use freely without a thought to their grammar. While “ought” and “used” may not seem significant, it is important to understand the correct way to use the two words. However, it is rather difficult to classify “ought” and “used” as being main verbs, auxiliary verbs, or modals because the words fall into more than one category.
Main verbs have the ability to have several different meanings. Some main verbs are followed by “to.” Both “ought” and “used” support this definition of the main verb as seen in the following examples:
You ought to try tennis.
You used to drive me to school.
Furthermore, is grammatically incorrect for “ought” and “used” to be placed at the beginning of the sentence:
(3)* Ought you try tennis.
(4)* Used you drive me to school.
However, the examples (1) and (2) does not have infinitive or participle forms as seen in the following examples:
(5)* You oughting to try tennis some
(6)* You useding to drive me to school.
Similarly, “ought” and “used” follow the first part of the auxiliary verb definition. Example (1) and (2) have meanings that are related to aspect, and it is possible to use both words in a passive voice. Both “ought” and “used” do not have infinitive and participle forms and cannot correctly appear at the beginning of questions as seen in the following examples:
(7)* Ought you to try tennis?
(8)* Used you to drive me to school?
(9)* Ought to you try tennis?
(10)* Used to you drive me to school?
It is clear that examples (7)* to (10)* are grammatically incorrect in either form.
Finally, both words act as modals because they can mean either possibility or obligation. However, again there is some exception to “ought” and “used” being modals. Both are usually followed by the word “to” as seen in example (1) and (2) which goes against part of the definition of a modal. Additionally, it is grammatically incorrect to use “ought” and “used” at the beginning of a question. It is possible for “ought” and “used” to appear before the word “not” in particular instances:
(11)? You ought not to try tennis.
(12)? You ought to not try tennis.
(13)? You used not to drive me to school.
(14)? You used to not drive me to school.
Since it is difficult to classify “ought” and “used,” examples (11)? to (14)? are marked with question marks. Speaking the sentences out loud, example (12)? and (14)? sounded better to many native English speakers. However, most were unsure if those sentences were grammatically correct. Personally, I felt that example (7) and (10) were correct, but I have left examples (8) and (9) as possible alternatives.
Personally, I think that the difficulty of categorizing “ought” and “used” makes it near impossible to put the words in any particular category. Even people who are native English speakers have trouble categorizing “ought” and “used”. Both words can fall under main verbs, auxiliary verbs, and modals but “ought” and “used” does not adequately fit the full definitions of these categories.
Therefore, it would make sense to create a new category to classify words like “ought” and “used” to better help people understand the usage of these words. By giving these words their own category, it would be easier to show examples of how “ought” and “used” can be used grammatically correct. Addition to a new category, new definitions is needed to explain better the categorizing of “ought” and “used.” By clearly defining the reason that words like “ought” and “used” have their own categories would make the utilization of these words clearer for both native and non-native English speakers. The following examples are the reason clarity is needed:
(15) Parents ought not let their young children out of doors alone.
(16) Parents ought not to let their young children out of doors alone.
Both sentences are grammatically correct. Currently, both sentences would fall under all three categories which make it rather difficult to explain why examples (15) and (16) are different yet correct. If examples (15) and (16) had one category and one definition or one group of definitions to help understand their usage, it would make explaining the correctness of these two examples.
