The following sentence is correct.
The device always or most of the time work properly.
Are the following versions correct as well?
The device all or most of the time work properly.
The device all or most time work properly.
On a related note, one of the meanings of at all times is constantly.
Let's see.....First off, your model sentence is incorrect as you've added an unnecessary to "time." The set phrase is "most of the time."
"All of the time" and "most of the time" can be used, but while the set phrase "most of the time" is natural here, "all of the time" is unnatural. "Always" is more succinct.
If you wanted to work them both into your sentence try starting with "most of the time": The device does not register false positives most or all of the time.
Because of the length of the phrase, it would sit awkwardly in between the verbs.
Hope that helps.
The question is largely unanswerable because it's not at all clear whether this is meant to be ordinary English or some kind of programming language or formal logic or something else.
First can we please drop the common element, ‘… register a false positive’ which, here, is to say ‘The device does not… register a false positive.’ Does anyone doubt that being common to all the examples, it had nothing to contribute?
Am I wrong to assume the example sentence is intended to mean that ‘not always’ or ‘most of the time’ are at least very similar, if not the same thing? I suggest they are not.
Is it unreasonable to insist that ‘not always’ might very well extend to the smallest measure in squilions but ‘most of the time’ must necessarily mean ‘the smallest measure more than half’?
My first thought, then, is that while in ordinary English ‘The device does not always or most of the time register a false positive’ is at least wholly grammatical, it has so much less useful meaning than first sight suggests that it’s more likely to be a translation from another language.
Why, exactly, would it not be better to render that statement as ‘The device does not always register a false positive’? What exactly would be lost?
Why, exactly, would it not be better to render that statement as ‘Most of the time the device does not register a false positive’? What exactly would be lost?
Why, exactly, is the complete original ‘The device does not always or most of the time register a false positive’ necessary or even helpful? ‘… not all or most of the time… ’ seems to have precisely the same meaning as ‘not always or most of the time ’… in ordinary English but is this meant to be ordinary English or some kind of programming language or formal logic?
‘… not all or most of the time… ’ seems rather different from ‘‘… not (all or most of the time)… ’ does it not? Other punctuation could change the meaning further, could it not?
‘… not all or most time…’ is not standard English and if anyone recognises it as idiom or even slang, please speak up!
‘… most of the times…’ is not common English and as can be seen at your link, forcing it to fit useful rules is not easy. In my view, the constructions given there are more obviously artificial than useful and anyone who wants to debate that is welcome…
‘At all times’ can be stretched to hint at ‘constantly’ but ‘stretch’ and ‘hint’ are the operative words there. Broadly, ‘At all times’ means at any time a measurement is taken, and says nothing about time unmeasured. By contrast ‘constantly’ means always, wholly independent of measurement. If it helps, ‘every time we measure this or that, we see a constant result’ does not show that the thing occurs ‘constantly’.
Jooya, does this become more interesting or more tedious, please?
Either way can you re-phrase. “Also, for the order of emphasis, I need to bring ‘all first. So, what is your suggestion? So you use the unnatural ‘all of the time?”
First no, you might need to ‘put’ all first but ‘bring’ and ‘put’ are not interchangeable. Either 'put it first…' or 'bring it into the first position…'
Then, ‘all of the time’ isn’t unnatural. It would be more usual to hear ‘all the time’ but that’s simply because the ‘of’ in ‘all of the time’ is purely for prominence; other than that it doesn’t change the meaning at all.
Then, isn't ‘at’ necessary before which phrase, please?
‘At all of the time(s)’ will always be wrong.
‘At all times’ will always be right.
Then, after yours below…
You first sentence is neither correct, nor clear. The device always or most of the time work properly.
Even if it was logically correct, that should be either ‘The device… works…’ or ‘The devices… work…’ with no options. It’s not remotely clear why you want to make your phrase as inaccurate as you could, but that’s pretty much what you’ve done. ‘The device always or most of the time works properly’ uses completely useless words which add nothing but confusion. There are no circumstances in which that is desirable.
If you mean always then say always.
If you don’t mean always then say most of the time
If you think anyone reading the phrase will thank for making it confusing, please explain how or why?
1. The device all or most of the time work properly.
shares the same problems with numbers of devices and with logic, accuracy and confusion 3. The device all or most time work properly. shares the same problems with numbers of devices and with logic, accuracy and confusion and rather worse, it moves at least towards, if not right into slang.
It needs to be either ‘… most of the time’ or ‘most times…’ but never ‘most time…’
The does phrase needs to be logically sound so if you insist on putting it back off screen that’s up to you but please stop messing about with ‘… always or most of the time…’ You are achieving nothing but pointless confusion, for no apparent reason.
It’s not clear to me even what you mean by needing to bring ‘all’ first, let alone why.
What makes you think ‘all of the time’ is either necessary or unnatural? Normally, ‘all the time’ might come first and ‘all of the time’ would more likely in explanation, clarification or contradistinction but that’s purely about context.
As your link went on to explain, ’Most of the times…’ is different and more specific and for now could we just say it has no real place here?
I find all three versions unacceptable, for a few reasons:
Instead, I'd suggest either of these:
- The device works properly most or all of the time.
- The device works properly most if not all of the time.
