Discussion:
haven't gone there regularly
(too old to reply)
a***@gmail.com
2018-01-08 23:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
1) Recently I haven't regularly gone to the gym.
2) Recently I haven't gone to the gym regularly.

3) I don't regularly listen to classical music.
4) I don't listen to classical music regularly.

Which are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?

Gratefully,
Navi.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-01-08 23:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) Recently I haven't regularly gone to the gym.
2) Recently I haven't gone to the gym regularly.
3) I don't regularly listen to classical music.
4) I don't listen to classical music regularly.
Which are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?
In 1 & 2 you'd probably drop 'regularly' altogether and simply
imply it by saying "I haven't been going to the gym recently."

3 & 4 are fine as they stand.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-09 09:21:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) Recently I haven't regularly gone to the gym.
2) Recently I haven't gone to the gym regularly.
3) I don't regularly listen to classical music.
4) I don't listen to classical music regularly.
Which are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?
In 1 & 2 you'd probably drop 'regularly' altogether and simply
imply it by saying "I haven't been going to the gym recently."
I'm not sure. Before Christmas I was supposed to go to the reeducation
centre every weekday. However, I missed two days, so I went, but I
didn't go regularly.
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
3 & 4 are fine as they stand.
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-09 09:17:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) Recently I haven't regularly gone to the gym.
2) Recently I haven't gone to the gym regularly.
3) I don't regularly listen to classical music.
4) I don't listen to classical music regularly.
Which are grammatical?
All
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which are idiomatic?
1 is a bit strange, but I suppose people might say it. 3 might seem
similar, but it doesn't grate the way 1 does. On the other hand 4,
which might seem similar to 2, also seems a bit strange.

The natural ways of conveying these ideas would be 2 and 3, to my mind.

Placing of adverbs is not a straightforward matter!
Post by a***@gmail.com
Gratefully,
Navi.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-09 15:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) Recently I haven't regularly gone to the gym.
2) Recently I haven't gone to the gym regularly.
3) I don't regularly listen to classical music.
4) I don't listen to classical music regularly.
Which are grammatical?
All
Post by a***@gmail.com
Which are idiomatic?
(1) is not quite idiomatic, but it could do. You probably don't want to have two -ly adverbs
so close together.
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-09 15:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) Recently I haven't regularly gone to the gym.
2) Recently I haven't gone to the gym regularly.
3) I don't regularly listen to classical music.
4) I don't listen to classical music regularly.
Which are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?
As people have been saying, 3 is the least idiomatic. But "I don't
usually listen to classical music" and "I don't normally listen to
classical music" are usual and normal. Please don't ask me to
explain that.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-09 16:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by a***@gmail.com
1) Recently I haven't regularly gone to the gym.
2) Recently I haven't gone to the gym regularly.
3) I don't regularly listen to classical music.
4) I don't listen to classical music regularly.
Which are grammatical?
Which are idiomatic?
As people have been saying, 3 is the least idiomatic. But "I don't
usually listen to classical music" and "I don't normally listen to
classical music" are usual and normal. Please don't ask me to
explain that.
"Regularly" would mean you have a set time every day/week for listening to c.m. -- perhaps the hour
a day, or the three hours on a Sunday, that your local FM station grudgingly dedicates to it.
RH Draney
2018-01-09 20:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
As people have been saying, 3 is the least idiomatic. But "I don't
usually listen to classical music" and "I don't normally listen to
classical music" are usual and normal. Please don't ask me to
explain that.
I recently ran across an argument saying that the Bill of Rights
prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" may be flawed, because as
stated it permits punishment that is either cruel or unusual, provided
only that it is not both....r
Mark Brader
2018-01-09 21:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
I recently ran across an argument saying that the Bill of Rights
prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" may be flawed, because as
stated it permits punishment that is either cruel or unusual, provided
only that it is not both.
Flawed? I thought that was the *idea*.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Verbose better."
***@vex.net -- David M. Sherman
Peter T. Daniels
2018-01-09 22:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Jerry Friedman
As people have been saying, 3 is the least idiomatic. But "I don't
usually listen to classical music" and "I don't normally listen to
classical music" are usual and normal. Please don't ask me to
explain that.
I recently ran across an argument saying that the Bill of Rights
prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" may be flawed, because as
stated it permits punishment that is either cruel or unusual, provided
only that it is not both....r
That's not a new complaint, and the Founders probably left an explanation of
why they worded it that way.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-01-10 14:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Jerry Friedman
As people have been saying, 3 is the least idiomatic. But "I don't
usually listen to classical music" and "I don't normally listen to
classical music" are usual and normal. Please don't ask me to
explain that.
I recently ran across an argument saying that the Bill of Rights
prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" may be flawed, because as
stated it permits punishment that is either cruel or unusual, provided
only that it is not both....r
One of the Oxford colleges was once said to make a distinction in its
statutes about offences for which its Head or its Fellows could be
dismissed. For the latter it was gross or persistent immorality, for
the former gross and persistent immorality. So the head could not be
dismissed for having relations with a sheep, or having relations with a
succession of women, but he could if he was guilty of both.
--
athel
Adam Funk
2018-01-10 14:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by RH Draney
Post by Jerry Friedman
As people have been saying, 3 is the least idiomatic. But "I don't
usually listen to classical music" and "I don't normally listen to
classical music" are usual and normal. Please don't ask me to
explain that.
I recently ran across an argument saying that the Bill of Rights
prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" may be flawed, because as
stated it permits punishment that is either cruel or unusual, provided
only that it is not both....r
One of the Oxford colleges was once said to make a distinction in its
statutes about offences for which its Head or its Fellows could be
dismissed. For the latter it was gross or persistent immorality, for
the former gross and persistent immorality. So the head could not be
dismissed for having relations with a sheep, or having relations with a
succession of women, but he could if he was guilty of both.
"bugger the bursar"
--
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
--- Abbie Hoffman
Jerry Friedman
2018-01-10 15:23:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by RH Draney
As people have been saying, 3 is the least idiomatic.  But "I don't
usually listen to classical music" and "I don't normally listen to
classical music" are usual and normal.  Please don't ask me to
explain that.
I recently ran across an argument saying that the Bill of Rights
prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" may be flawed, because
as stated it permits punishment that is either cruel or unusual,
provided only that it is not both....r
One of the Oxford colleges was once said to make a distinction in its
statutes about offences for which its Head or its Fellows could be
dismissed. For the latter it was gross or persistent immorality, for the
former gross and persistent immorality. So the head could not be
dismissed for having relations with a sheep, or having relations with a
succession of women, but he could if he was guilty of both.
Or if he'd had relations with a succession of sheep.

I wonder whether having sex with one woman (not his wife) would have
been considered gross immorality at some period.
--
Jerry Friedman
Adam Funk
2018-01-10 15:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by RH Draney
As people have been saying, 3 is the least idiomatic.  But "I don't
usually listen to classical music" and "I don't normally listen to
classical music" are usual and normal.  Please don't ask me to
explain that.
I recently ran across an argument saying that the Bill of Rights
prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" may be flawed, because
as stated it permits punishment that is either cruel or unusual,
provided only that it is not both....r
One of the Oxford colleges was once said to make a distinction in its
statutes about offences for which its Head or its Fellows could be
dismissed. For the latter it was gross or persistent immorality, for the
former gross and persistent immorality. So the head could not be
dismissed for having relations with a sheep, or having relations with a
succession of women, but he could if he was guilty of both.
Or if he'd had relations with a succession of sheep.
I wonder whether having sex with one woman (not his wife) would have
been considered gross immorality at some period.
Most men who don't have sex with sheep would describe sex with sheep
as "gross"; that adjective is probably used less by non-adulterous men
to describe other men's adultery. Or do you have to do it 144 times
for it to count?
--
Classical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture,
indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us
doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and
Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995)
Cheryl
2018-01-10 17:30:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by RH Draney
As people have been saying, 3 is the least idiomatic.  But "I don't
usually listen to classical music" and "I don't normally listen to
classical music" are usual and normal.  Please don't ask me to
explain that.
I recently ran across an argument saying that the Bill of Rights
prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" may be flawed, because
as stated it permits punishment that is either cruel or unusual,
provided only that it is not both....r
One of the Oxford colleges was once said to make a distinction in its
statutes about offences for which its Head or its Fellows could be
dismissed. For the latter it was gross or persistent immorality, for
the former gross and persistent immorality. So the head could not be
dismissed for having relations with a sheep, or having relations with
a succession of women, but he could if he was guilty of both.
Or if he'd had relations with a succession of sheep.
I wonder whether having sex with one woman (not his wife) would have
been considered gross immorality at some period.
Oh, I expect so, in certain social circles and at certain times. It's
easy to forget how much and how fast social norms have changed.
--
Cheryl
RH Draney
2018-01-10 21:24:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by RH Draney
I recently ran across an argument saying that the Bill of Rights
prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" may be flawed, because
as stated it permits punishment that is either cruel or unusual,
provided only that it is not both....r
One of the Oxford colleges was once said to make a distinction in its
statutes about offences for which its Head or its Fellows could be
dismissed. For the latter it was gross or persistent immorality, for the
former gross and persistent immorality. So the head could not be
dismissed for having relations with a sheep, or having relations with a
succession of women, but he could if he was guilty of both.
But (assuming the exclusive "or") a Fellow already guilty of serial
philandering could if caught at it escape dismissal by finding himself a
sheep and....

....r
Richard Tobin
2018-01-10 23:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RH Draney
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
One of the Oxford colleges was once said to make a distinction in its
statutes about offences for which its Head or its Fellows could be
dismissed. For the latter it was gross or persistent immorality, for the
former gross and persistent immorality. So the head could not be
dismissed for having relations with a sheep, or having relations with a
succession of women, but he could if he was guilty of both.
But (assuming the exclusive "or") a Fellow already guilty of serial
philandering could if caught at it escape dismissal by finding himself a
sheep and....
That would be parallel philandering.

-- Richard

Loading...