The construction crops up constantly in both writing and speech: “The senator didn’t use to be such a bore.” Or is it properly, “The senator didn’t used to be such a bore”?

This is a cosmic issue. The authorities are divided and ambiguous. My vote goes to “use” – the senator didn’t use to be – on the theory that one verb in the past tense is quite enough in a sentence of nine words, but the discussion has barely begun.

The verb “to use” is among the sullied glories of the English language. Its first fuzzy meaning is “to employ,” as in, “She used all her charms to ensorcell Caesar.” It can mean “to manipulate,” as in, “She used him shamelessly.” When “up” is added, we get a sense of completion, “We have used up the gin.” When an infinitive is added, we get into the muddle that prompts today’s muddling: “She didn’t use to use so much lipstick.”

In some constructions the choice is clear. When the meaning is “formerly,” the simple past tense works: “We used to go fishing every weekend.” “He used to be a statesman, but now he’s a politician.”

Bryan Garner, in “Modern American Usage,” rules flatly that “He didn’t use to be a bore” is wrong. In his view, it should be “he didn’t used to be,” which appears in print four times as often as “didn’t use to be.”

R.W. Burchfield, in “The New Fowler’s,” sensibly distinguishes written English from spoken English. In spoken English, the ear detects no difference in “use to be” and “used to be.” All the same. In written English, reputable examples are in conflict. Burchfield cites: “He didn’t use to wear gloves.” “What time did she used to return?” “It didn’t use to be that way.” “Prostate cancer didn’t used to be a problem.” He cites mystery writer Agatha Christie for a negative construction: “You usen’t to be like that” and “The mistress usedn’t to sleep well at night.” My own thought would be to take “usen’t” and “usedn’t” outside and shoot them.

Finally, let us hear from Merriam-Webster’s authoritative Dictionary of English Usage. The editors begin unequivocally: “In writing, ‘use to’ in place of ‘used to’ is an error.” Then they back off. “The problem becomes a little trickier in constructions with ‘did.”‘ Here, the correct form following “did” is “use to,” as in, “He didn’t use to wear spats.”

It remains to be said only that “to utilize” is an abomination, an utterly useless verb that provides no meaning not already embraced by “to use.” We don’t “utilize” a cuspidor as a flower pot. We use it, thereby saving two syllables worth at least 50 cents each. Waste not, want not.

Changing the subject: A comment comes to hand about “stamping” and “stomping.” We talked about the verbs a year ago. Kevin Coleman, of Somewhere in Cyberspace, writes to suggest that the distinction is largely one of vigor. We stamp cookies from a sheet of dough. Huge machines stamp out automobile parts. And of course we stamp letters. We attempt to stamp out a rising epidemic.

“If you watch a man with a small fire, he will carefully put his foot down over and over, observing the remaining embers, thinking about where to put his foot next. He stamps it out through repetitive motions. Stomping is something else. Stomping is generally done without regard to the physical consequences. People at a hoedown don’t stamp their feet, they stomp them.”

Sounds right to me. And now on to something else entirely: I am running low on praiseworthy examples of “the good stuff.” I’d like to compliment writers for striking similes, nice metaphors, neat turns of phrase. Please let me have dated citations from books, magazines and newspapers, sent in care of this newspaper, or by e-mail to kilpatjj@aol.com.

James Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist.

Copy the Story Link