I am hearing the use of this odd-sounding construction more and more frequently as of late. For example:
I didn't used to smoke.
I didn't used to work for McDonald's.
I was trying to think of alternatives to this phrase but all I could think of was previously:
I didn't previously smoke.
I didn't previously work for McDonald's.
That said, to me, the use of "previously" instead implies an event took place that changed the fact in the statement. In other words, to me, "previously" is more similar to "prior to (something)," whereas "didn't used to" refers to the general past.
Are there any better alternatives to that of which I have already thought?
Best Answer
I see nothing wrong or odd with the following sentence and its meaning.
This statement means I was a non-smoker in the past. It implies that today I smoke on a regular basis. When we want to contrast a repeated action in the past that is no longer true in the present, used to, is a perfectly valid construction. Compare the same sentence in the affirmative
This means I was a smoker in the past, but now I do not smoke. To make the past simple negative form in English use did + infinitive verb
Examples:
Likewise with used to, the negative form in the past simple is didn't + use to
The difference between didn't use to and didn't used to is not noticeable in speech but this error (and it is an error, I don't care how many instances Google says otherwise) is replicated in writing.
The story is a little different with the second example (corrected)
Here the speaker is saying he didn't work for an extended period for or in a McDonald's restaurant. However, this implies he is working for that company today.
Macmillian Dictionary says:
If you want to substitute "didn't use to" say never.
Alternatively, as suggested by @Peter Shor in the comments below