# EN: avec régularité dans le temps



## çamegonfle

with regularity along the time? with regularity in time?


----------



## Outsider

"Regularly through time", perhaps? Or "across"...


----------



## çamegonfle

Do you think I can say for example:

it is important that the plant is supplied with substrates regularly through time..?

it sounds also weird isn't it?


----------



## Old Novice

Given that context, I just say "regularly" or "on a regular basis."


----------



## çamegonfle

sorry!

it goes about the way how a biogas plant is supplied with substrates


----------



## Old Novice

çamegonfle said:


> sorry!
> 
> it goes about the way how a biogas plant is supplied with substrates


No problem.  On reflection, "on a regular basis" seems to capture the intent a bit better than simply "regularly".  It implies keeping to a set schedule, to me, in a way that a mere "regularly" does not.


----------



## çamegonfle

sure that "on a regular basis" emphasizes it is "dans le temps" like everyday it needs this certain amount of substrates so that is runs at its nominale/full capacity?


----------



## Old Novice

"On a regular basis" does not specify the frequency. If a specific frequency is known, you would use that: hourly, twice a day, daily, every other day, weekly, etc.

Edit: Or "continously" if there needs to be a steady feed.


----------



## çamegonfle

steady feed would pass I think!

The banks also want to be sure that the unit will run at its nominale capacity - foreseen in the financing plan - that is the installation will be supplied with a steady feed.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Steady feed sound American to me. You should be warned that the word basis is terribly overused in British English and is subject to a considerable linguistic backlash - many people hate it. I much prefer regularly. Also I'd try to avoid impersonals and passives - the suggested sentence, it is important that the plant is supplied with substrates regularly through time, uses both. Why not say, if these are instructions to the user? -

Be sure to (or don't fail to) feed your plant regularly with substrates.


----------



## çamegonfle

Hi Thomas Tompion,

This is for a essay and the real sentence a would like to write is:

The banks also want to be sure that the unit will run at its nominale/full capacity - foreseen in the financing plan - that is the installation will be supplied regularly with substrates.

I might write _steady feed_ because it expressed the best what I would like to say, _regularly_ sounds too weak. I learnt English in Britain but my friend who is going to correct all of my work (the poor!) is American. So it is going to be a mixture anyway.. My supervisor is German, he won't notice it!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

çamegonfle said:


> Hi Thomas Tompion,
> 
> This is for a essay and the real sentence a would like to write is:
> 
> The banks also want to be sure that the unit will run at its nominale/full capacity - foreseen in the financing plan - that is the installation will be supplied regularly with substrates.
> 
> I might write _steady feed_ because it expressed the best what I would like to say, _regularly_ sounds too weak. I learnt English in Britain but my friend who is going to correct all of my work (the poor!) is American. So it is going to be a mixture anyway.. My supervisor is German, he won't notice it!


Hi,

Your sentence sounds fine to me as it stands apart from nominal/full, where I'd put nominal full.  How do you envisage incorporating steady feed into the sentence?  On a steady feed sounds a bit strange, but fed steadily breaks the idiom and would make people smile, I think.  You've probably got other, better, ideas.


----------



## sam's mum

_at regular intervals_ is my suggestion.


----------



## çamegonfle

Hello again

You've probably got other, better, ideas.: ?? where from?

I think I will let regularly then because if it is not exactly what I wanted to say, at least the grammatic is alright and that's the most important!


----------



## Thomas Tompion

çamegonfle said:


> Hello again
> 
> You've probably got other, better, ideas.: ?? where from?
> 
> I think I will let regularly then because if it is not exactly what I wanted to say, at least the grammatic is alright and that's the most important!


Regularly is safe and clear and grammatically easy to incorporate.  Incidentally, I'd say all right - alright is still regarded as overinformal by many people in BE.


----------



## çamegonfle

thank you

is alright AE? I want to speak BE actually (it's just because I have a special feeling for Britain, not that I have something against the US! I like the BBC-like even though it might sound posh) and I noticed that I sometimes don't know what is what.. et je me surprends parfois à écrire de l'AE..


----------



## Thomas Tompion

çamegonfle said:


> thank you
> 
> is alright AE? I want to speak BE actually (it's just because I have a special feeling for Britain, not that I have something against the US! I like the BBC-like even though it might sound posh) and I noticed that I sometimes don't know what is what.. et je me surprends parfois à écrire de l'AE..


You might find this a help on all right; it's full of helpful links as well. I think your sentence will be fine as it is, as long as you clear up the point about capacity.


----------



## çamegonfle

great, great! So I'll keep alright for my friends now!

the point about capacity is: _capacité nominale_ in French. In the WR dictionary I found "nominal" so it would be "_nominal capacity_" + I remember the expression "_full capacity_" but I think it means "_capacité maximale_". As I don't know in French whether _capacité maximale_ is the same as _capacité nominale_, I stuck to my own limits again..

You told me you would write _nominal full capacity _isn't it?


----------



## çamegonfle

_capacité de production nominale: rated production capacity_

I eventually found it..


----------

