# Rarely: use of frequency adverbs with past tense



## mimi2

Hi,
Which tense of the verb can I use to make sense.Thanks.
1. Rarely did they go to the movies these days.
2. Rarely have they go to the movies these days.

 <Moderator note: this thread is a copy, a lengthy discussion of the grammar of frequency adverbs with the past tense. If you wish to directly address Mimi's question, please refer to the original thread, still titled Rarely, here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=129958 >


----------



## vince

You are using "These days", so I am guessing that you mean the present time.

Then #2 would be correct. But replace "go" with "gone", you are using the present perfect so "go" --> past participle "gone".

"Rarely have they gone to the movies these days"

or "They have rarely gone to the movies these days"

or "They have rarely gone to the movies *lately*"


----------



## sarahdo

It is awkward to start a sentence with "rarely," so I would suggest saying:

"They rarely go to the movies these days."


----------



## panjandrum

If you really want to start with rarely:
Rarely do they go to the movies these days.


----------



## petereid

Few people would use "rarely" to start the sentence. Most likely would be:-

They rarely go to the movies......         
They rarely went to the movies...

or in UK English 
They rarely go to the cinema.        ".......to the pictures."
or if the emphasis is on the times,
These days, they rarely go........
Those days, they rarely went.....


----------



## comsci

The signifier here I believe is the word "rarely", which is a frequency adverb(others like every day, frequently, often, seldom, usually, always, occasionally..and such) that is used to describe "events" or "facts" IN "present time/tense." You don't say "I rarely went to the movies" or "I have rarely been to the States." That just doesn't make any sense, if at all. The rule of thumb here is "always use frequency adverb with present tense"(because they go along) and that's the way to go and how I was taught at school. Hope this helps.


----------



## petereid

to go more colloquial
Me, I hardly ever go to the cinema.
When I was a kid I hardly ever went......


----------



## panjandrum

comsci said:
			
		

> [...] You don't say _*"I rarely went to the movies" or "I have rarely been to the States."*_ That just doesn't make any sense, if at all. The rule of thumb here is "always use frequency adverb with present tense"(because they go along) and that's the way to go and how I was taught at school. Hope this helps.


My own unease with these particular examples is the use of past or present perfect with _*these days*_.
Some of these words "go along" perfectly well with the two sentence forms highlighted above. I don't find any of the following mixed sample of words and structures at all exceptional:
I usually went to the movies ...
I occasionally went to the movies ...
I always went to the movies ...
I have seldom been to the movies ...
I have frequently been to the movies ...
I have often been to the movies ...


----------



## comsci

"I went to the movies + past time", "I have been to the States"..cross out the "frequency adverb" if you have to write sentences like these. I'm just being very grammatical here, as some of my school English teachers were.(in Canada) I consider some of them being overly grammatical. Now I couldn't even remember how I got through my Grade 10 Literature course, yikes!!


----------



## panjandrum

I really can't see what kind of grammatical impropriety is being committed in the examples I posted up above. Some of them I would not expect to be free-standing sentences - they need something to follow - but some are perfectly OK as they are.

What did you do in Bolton if it was raining on a Saturday afternoon?
I usually/always/often went to the movies.


----------



## comsci

Well, it's like saying "I have eaten dinner(correct)" instead of "I have just eaten dinner(wrong)." The word "just" or "just now" signifies a "past event" and so do all the "frequency adverbs" signify "events" OR "facts" that happen in "present time/tense". You could, however, say "I just had/ate dinner" OR "I ate just now" but NOT "I have eaten dinner just now." Please don't get me wrong as I'm not trying to be fussy/picky or anything. "I usually/always/often GO to the movies/cinema" is good but not "WENT to". You could say "I used to go to the movies/cinema a lot" to avoid any confusion/ambiguity. Peace!!


----------



## panjandrum

I accept the peace - but clearly we do not accept the same customs in relation to this aspect of grammar. 



> Well, it's like saying "I have eaten dinner(correct)" instead of _*"I have just eaten dinner(wrong)."*_


 

I have just eaten an apple and no gods of grammar have arrived to choke me.
I have never come across this apparent rule.
Can you find a web reference?


----------



## cuchuflete

The Canadian grammar teachers know much more about English than I do, it seems.

With what frequency did the colonials eat ostriches? They rarely ate large birds, as these had to be imported, and in days prior to the advent of refrigeration, such imports were seen infrequently.

How might one express these thoughts in accord with the grammar bestowed in Canada?


----------



## comsci

Simple, turn the whole sentence into "facts" then you can use "present tense" any way you like it.  Got it?   The point here is, why uses "past tense" when you can well use "present tense", which is the set rule for "frequent events" AND "facts".  I'm no grammarian myself so if I don't explain things(grammar in this case) well enough, that's reasonable.

"They rarely EAT large birds..(omitted)"


----------



## petereid

*I have just eaten dinner*

*That's exactly what I say when when someone phones at 6.30*


----------



## comsci

If you insist on using "past tense", which you could, please remove "frequency adverbs" from ALL your sentences.  Have you learned Boolean values before? It's like you can't have one turned on when the other is present. To be or NOT to be. Zero or one. Yes or No.  Never BOTH.


----------



## comsci

It may sound all natural to you guys and yes I DO understand, but it's syntactically wrong. "just" AND "just now" are to go with and ONLY with "past tense." Please don't argue with me, go to my grammar teacher.   "I JUST ate."  "I have eaten dinner.(with a period)"


----------



## panjandrum

It is clear that comsci's grammar book contains a number of very novel "set rules" and "rules of thumb" that have not previously come to light anywhere else.

Why should anyone suggest that using the present tense is the "set rule" for facts?

I fear that until comsci is able to produce evidence to support these strange statements we must assume that he is a week or so late with his April Fool jape.


----------



## Kelly B

comsci said:
			
		

> If you insist on using "past tense", which you could, please remove "frequency adverbs" from ALL your sentences.  Have you learned Boolean values before? It's like you can't have one turned on when the other is present. To be or NOT to be. Zero or one. Yes or No.  Never BOTH.


 This is simply not correct.

When I was a student I rarely ate expensive meals. 

This sentence combines the past tense with a frequency adverb. It is fine. Yes, I understand Boolean algebra, and it does not apply to English grammar.


----------



## petereid

I think Comsci's getting digital logic, and Boolean algebra, mixed up with language.


----------



## comsci

Good question but I don't know the answer to it. At any rate, that's what grammarians/linguists have been striving hard for. What for? Again no one could answer this question, if ever. Feel free to accept it or NOT accept it(it's your free choice), but the truth is(and will always be) OUT there. Please be open-minded. Do we know if aliens(or god maybe i shouldn't say) exist? No one can ever come up with any HARD evidence but that doesn't mean the denial of it, by the same token. Most of us don't write grammar books but why do we trust or have faith in what we believe is true? The answer is simple because you're so used to what you think are true and that's about it.


----------



## Josh_

I agree that "I just ate dinner" is better. It sounds better to my ears.

"Would you like some cake?"
"No thanks, I just ate dinner."

I don't see the need for "I have just eaten dinner" even though both would work.  

The discussion in this thread is what I was referring to when I said:



> "I find that a lot of people use the ... present perfect when they don't really need to -- the simple past would suffice."


 in this thread.

Or should that be I have found ...


----------



## cuchuflete

comsci said:
			
		

> Simple, turn the whole sentence into "facts" then you can use "present tense" any way you like it.  Got it?  *The point here is, why uses "past tense" when you can well use "present tense"*, which is the set rule for "frequent events" AND "facts". I'm no grammarian myself so if I don't explain things(grammar in this case) well enough, that's reasonable.
> 
> "They rarely EAT large birds..(omitted)"



No, the point here is, I gave an example of 'facts' which took place in a prior time.  You may wish to talk about 1623 as if it were the present.  That could have some clumsy results.


----------



## panjandrum

comsci said:
			
		

> [...] Feel free to accept it or NOT accept it(it's your free choice), but the truth is(and will always be) OUT there. Please be open-minded. [...] Most of us don't write grammar books but why do we trust or have faith in what we believe is true? *The answer is simple because you're so used to what you think are true and that's about it.*


You have made a number of very dogmatic statements in this thread about rules of grammar. These appear to be contrary to the experience of others.
You have been asked to provide some evidence of these strange and anomalous rules. You haven't done so - yet.
I ask you to consider the last sentence of the above quote, and contemplate the possibility that just this once _*you*_ may be wrong.


----------



## comsci

It's perfectly OK to use any "past tense" in a past/prior time but not WITH those "frequency adverbs."  That's the whole point.  I know this could go on and on and some(or most) of you may not agree with me but that's how grammar is structured and written in the textbook.(at least when I learned it)  So why don't you guys just cut me some slack?   I've simply presented what/how I was taught in school and I mean no offense to you all native speakers of English out there. Peace!!


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that some textbook, somewhere, makes the assertions stated by Comsci. I'm further open to the idea that some grammar teacher in Canada or elsewhere purveys these--to me--strange ideas.

I have never seen or heard of such a rule. I've looked for any possible reference to them both in Fowler and a few dictionaries of modern AE usage, and have found nothing even vaguely similar to the assertions.



> Results *1* - *20* of about *27,300* for * "Rarely did he"*





> Results *1* - *20* of about *30,700* for *"they often went"*



There is no mention of tense in this:
http://esl.about.com/library/grammar/blgr_adverbs_frequency.htm
or any other source I have seen regarding adverbs of frequency.

If such a source exists, please share its identity with us.


----------



## comsci

You asked me to trace back and provide evidence for something I've learned more than a decade ago? That's a bit "harsh" to ask. At least that's how/as I "remembered" it. Maybe you all can amend certain grammar that don't fit in your stereotype, I hope.  The bottom line is, stick to/use whatever you like/prefer but remember the "rules" that's all. As my English prof used to say "the general flaw of native speakers of English tends to fall on loose grammar", now I recall.


----------



## cuchuflete

> Results 1 - 20 of about 180,000 for  "it was frequently"



I ask only that when you assert something so vehemently, and it sounds so strange to native speakers who have some interest in, and awareness of grammar, both BE and AE, that you offer more than recollection as a proof source. 

I am more than happy to remember and employ a rule I have seen, and less so with one whose existence is but mere hearsay.


----------



## comsci

Ok, you win. But there was once upon a time when people believed that the Earth IS flat. Does it then make it true that the Earth is "flat"? The answer is obvious enough. Besides, the statement that something being "strange", "odd", or even "grotesque" is certainly irrelevant to the validity of the "thing" being discussed, which in this case IS grammar.

Ok, I'll try and we shall see.(given the time I have available without sacraficing my personal life)


----------



## panjandrum

comsci,
You ask us to cut you some slack, and you say that you are only repeating what you were taught. Yet in the same post you state unequivocally:


> It's perfectly OK to use any "past tense" in a past/prior time but not WITH those "frequency adverbs." That's the whole point. I know this could go on and on and some(or most) of you may not agree with me but that's how grammar is structured and written in the textbook.


You seem unable to provide a suitable reference to support this statement, and others made with similar absolute certainty. It is important that your statements are not left unchallenged.


> Besides, the statement that something being "strange", "odd", or even "grotesque" is certainly irrelevant to the validity of the "thing" being discussed, which in this case IS grammar.


I'm sorry to have to say this again, but you have provided no evidence whatever to support this assertion.



> ... stick to/use whatever you like/prefer but remember the "rules" that's all.


... or this one.  I respectfully suggest that somewhere in the ten years since you heard a rule in this area, it may have become misremembered.


----------



## cuchuflete

This has naught to do with winning or losing.
A proposition has been presented without any proof.
Others have questioned it and produced some evidence that
suggests the proposition is incorrect.
Nothing but repetition that "that's what I was taught" has been added in support of the proposition.

Conclusion: the proposition is without foundation or merit.

If I were to declare that most EFL students do not understand grammar (which is not my belief!), you would be right to challenge me to produce some evidence before accepting that proposition.  If my best supporting evidence were multiple iterations of "That's what the book said." and "It is that way because that is the truth." you would be quite right to dismiss my statement as nothing but, at best, a curious personal opinion.


----------



## cuchuflete

The forero frequently had recourse to memory, in support of a dubious claim. She rarely got beyond repetition. Yesterday, we were favored with sunshine, but infrequently there were rain showers. We sometimes tried to move these showers into the present, but were often met with logical obstacles.


Suggestion: Declare victory and withdraw from the field of battle.


----------



## comsci

Yes, that I totally agree and understand. "Evidence" is key to all this which I know better than any of you.  And until concrete evidence has been supplied, will and only will your assertion/argument be valid or sustained.  Please, I learned all these cxxp in my high school English classes.  Please don't iterate this treating me like I don't know it.  As a matter of fact, I'll find the source the best I possibly can to "redeem" myself.  Is that good enough?  No preaching please.


----------



## cuchuflete

The argument _ad ignorantiam_ (from ignorance) is the mistake that is committed *when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1043424/posts

*No preaching, just a request to demonstrate why we should be persuaded.

Nobody has yet provided proof to overcome my revelation of the rule that adjectives in English have gender. Therefore, I state that they are a bunch of flat Earth advocates.


----------



## comsci

Sure, but how did you come up with YOUR "revelation of the rule/truth" if you haven't indeed seen one? Therefore, it's wrong about anything that you may or wish to state simply because there hasn't been any evidence/proof provided, as is in my case.  By the way, please don't just close the forum(or thread I should say) when you find something that's not of your interest. I take that as strictly personal.


----------



## cuchuflete

comsci said:
			
		

> Sure, but *how did you come up with YOUR "revelation* of the rule/truth" if you haven't indeed seen one? Therefore, it's wrong about anything that you may or wish to state simply because there hasn't been any evidence/proof provided, as is in my case.



I came up with it based on a memory of what I was once taught. 

I cannot offer, or at least have not yet given evidence,
of the accuracy of the memories, yet I accuse those who disagree with my assertion of being flat-Earthers.


----------



## comsci

Good and I think you should stick with it for the rest of your life, like I did.  I SELDOM question my teacher's words for the reasons that they're well-educated and got out from good universities. I don't know if all people on this forum have the same kind of credentials they do yet I'll keep it open and have high regard for you guys.   It's been worthwhile ever since I came here.  Congrats on a job well done cuchu for being so nice, just, fair, and impartial.


----------



## comsci

Ok, I did a search and looked it up in Google and yes "frequency adverbs" DO go with tenses other than "present simple", which is used to describe "events" OR "facts" in present time.

Quote:
When we want to say how often something happens, it is common to use *frequency adverbs*. It is POSSIBLE to use them when referring to the past, present or future.

I have to admit that age has taken its toll on me since I remembered it wrong.  But anyhow, I also have to say that I never knew this up until now and it's my gain because of your questioning and challenges for "evidence/proof" which eventually proved me wrong.  I thank you all for such a wonderful discussion(for those of you who replied) and sorry for any inconvenience or annoyance this may have caused.

"I rarely went to cinemas when I was a child."  I'll try to get used to it from now on.


----------



## cuchuflete

Comsci-

I congratulate you for taking the trouble to look it up.  We all have deceptive memories at times.  I further congratulate you for the clear and straightforward 'setting the record straight'.  

Now we can both proceed forward without risk of stepping off the flat Earth.


----------



## comsci

That was quite heartfelt of you, ostrich master(should I call it?) By the way isn't Maine(ME) the most north-eastern state in the country? Just a check on my American geography.


----------



## zebedee

comsci said:
			
		

> It may sound all natural to you guys and yes I DO understand, but it's syntactically wrong. "just" AND "just now" are to go with and ONLY with "past tense." Please don't argue with me, go to my grammar teacher.   "I JUST ate."  "I have eaten dinner.(with a period)"



And may I just add, for clarification purposes, that 

"*I have just eaten dinner*" is the correct form used in British, Irish, Australian and New Zealand English. 
"*I just ate dinner*" is the correct form used in US (and most probably Canadian) English.

Neither are "syntactically wrong". The US form sounds strange to British/Irish/Australian/New Zealander ears and vice versa.


*Comsci*, you haven't been in these forums for long so I'd like to give you a piece of advice:
Before you state categorically that something "is wrong" simply because you've never heard of it, do what other forum members do and look it up first. 
Though you have an admirable level of English, you are not an expert and you would be better saying: "It sounds strange to me" or "I've never heard of that usage" instead of "that's wrong". Your grammar teacher, and your interpretation of what your grammar teacher taught you, are naturally open to errors.
The other forum members will value your contributions more if they see you are well-documented and collaborative.

Thanks,
zebedee
Moderator


----------



## comsci

Thanks zebedee for your further clarification and confirmation on this now I'm confident and know that I WAS 100% mistaken by my deceptive/faulty memory. Swear to God that I never knew "just" and "just now" are acceptable to go with "present perfect" up until yesterday or so. It's even amazing as to how I could have gotten through daily conversation as well as lecture/discussion classes with such a handicap of grammar in my head. I guess, after all, what turns an angel a "fallen" one(and vice versa) is the matter of faith, which could be used for good yet just as well for bad. I once believed that something WAS true based on one single piece of memory but I learned it from you guys, at last. To be or NOT to be? Make it right and straight once and for all then so be it. Again thank you all for the redemption to save a burning soul. 

Yes, in time, I'll try to get back on track and be more careful in my tone when replying/answering questions while providing somewhat more concrete/hard evidence/proof/facts as I possibly could and to the best knowledge of mine.  Sorry for all the mess I've created.


----------



## Grekh

I know this thread has been inactive for quite a while. I have read the whole argument over the use of frequency adverbs in tenses other from present simple. I've just come to realize that I can't think of an example using "sometimes" in the past without it kind of sounding weird to my ears. I'm not a English native speaker, so my parameters are not as valid as yours, but still I want to ask you if it's possible to use "sometimes" in the past, like..

I sometimes went to the park...
She sometimes watched TV...

It sounds weird to me, but you know more than I do!  Please help!


----------



## Cagey

I don't think there is any inhibition against using 'sometimes' in the past.  Both of your sentences sound acceptable to me. 

I would be inclined to position 'sometimes' either at the beginning or at the end of the sentences, but that is a stylistic preference, not a matter of grammatical correctness:
_Sometimes I went to the park...
She watched TV sometimes .._


----------



## e2efour

Grekh said:


> ...but still I want to ask you if it's possible to use "sometimes" in the past, like..
> I sometimes went to the park...
> She sometimes watched TV...



Of course you can. This was made clear in #8 where _occasionally_ with the past tense was used, which is similar to _sometimes _in meaning.


----------



## Grekh

Thank you very much! I have been thinking way too much in French and now my English seems to become a bit rusty!


----------



## _Husby_

panjandrum said:


> I usually went to the movies ...


Hi, @panjandrum. I know this is quite an old thread, but I was looking for an indication of use of adverbs of frequency in the past (since the textbooks I've checked seem to avoid it) and I ran into this thread. You used the sentence quoted above and I was wondering what the difference between "I usually went to the movies" and "I used to go to the movies" was.

Also, seeing you're from Ireland, is "movies" used there, too? I thought you people used "films"/"cinema".

Thank you.


----------



## sound shift

_Husby_ said:


> I was wondering what the difference between "I usually went to the movies" and "I used to go to the movies" was.


The difference is difficult to explain without a sentence and a context. Can you provide these, please?

"Usually" tends to imply a comparison, but the comparison must be evident. So "When I lived in Berlin I split my spare time between the football and the movies. I usually went to the movies." makes sense. "When I lived in Berlin I usually went to the movies." doesn't make sense.

"Used to" is different. It implies repeated behaviour. "When I lived in Berlin I used to go to the movies." makes sense.


----------



## _Husby_

sound shift said:


> The difference is difficult to explain without a sentence and a context. Can you provide these, please?
> 
> "Usually" tends to imply a comparison, but the comparison must be evident. So "When I lived in Berlin I split my spare time between the football and the movies. I usually went to the movies" makes sense. "When I lived in Berlin I usually went to the movies" doesn't make sense.
> 
> "Used to" is different. It implies repeated behaviour. "When I lived in Berlin I used to go to the movies" makes sense.


I'm sorry. I can't provide any context because I was just quoting some else's contribution. As I said in my previous post, I couldn't find any reference to adverbs of frequency in the past. Besides, I haven't ever heard it on TV or read it in a book (that's the most natural English I'm exposed to every day)as far as I can remember, so reading "I usually went to the movies" sounded odd to me. I'm familiar, though, with "used to", so I was wondering if they were the same or different. 

With regards to your example, I don't understand it. "*When I lived in Berlin I split my spare time between the* (why the?) *football and the movies. I usually went to the movies*". Where's the comparison here? I mean, there's no reference about how often you played football.


----------



## _Husby_

I've found online another example of use of _usually _in the past, which I hope will help understand the point of my first question in this thread-

_As children we _*usually*_ went to bed at 9pm_.

What's the difference between the above-mentioned sentence and the following one?

As children we *used to* go to bed at 9 p.m.


----------



## grassy

I'd say the second sentence implies that we _always_ went to bed at 9 PM.


----------



## _Husby_

So you mean to say that

_As children we _*used to*_ go to bed at 9pm_. 

has the same meaning as

As children we *always *went to bed at 9pm?

You know, now that I see it like this it makes perfect sense to me now!  Let's wait for the native speakers to confirm, shall we?


----------



## grassy

_Husby_ said:


> _As children we _*used to*_ go to bed at 9pm_.
> 
> has the same meaning as
> 
> As children we *always *went to bed at 9pm?


Not exactly. The sentence doesn't _explicitly_ state how often that happened. We can only guess what it implies. And I think in that case the implication would be closer to _always_, not _usually._


----------



## sound shift

_Husby_ said:


> With regards to your example, I don't understand it. "*When I lived in Berlin I split my spare time between the* (why the?) *football and the movies. I usually went to the movies*". Where's the comparison here? I mean, there's no reference about how often you played football.


A comparison of frequency is implied. The second sentence tells us that I went to the movies *more often *than I went to the football. I say "the football" because I mean "the football that was played in Berlin."


----------



## _Husby_

sound shift said:


> A comparison of frequency is implied. The second sentence tells us that I went to the movies *more often *than I went to the football. I say "the football" because I mean "the football that was played in Berlin."


Wouldn't it sound more natural with a linking word of contrast, such as "but"? 

"*When I lived in Berlin I split my spare time between the football and the movies, but I usually went to the movies". *


----------

