1) You have both been there on many weekends.
2) You have both been there on many a weekend.

3) They have all been there on many weekends.
4) They have all been there on many a weekend.

Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there together?

Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there on the same weekends?

Gratefully,
Navi

Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Interested in structures on the margins of grammaticality
Obsessed with ambiguity

Le 14/03/2024 à 02:52, navi a écrit :
>
> 1) You have both been there on many weekends.
> 2) You have both been there on many a weekend.
>
> 3) They have all been there on many weekends.
> 4) They have all been there on many a weekend.
>
> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there together?
>
> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there on the same
> weekends?

I'm going to translate 'on' to 'for', since 'on * weekend' grates badly
(makes AmE grate again).

(<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=go+there+for+the+weekend%2Cgo+there+on+the+weekend&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3>)

> 1) You have both been there for many weekends.
> 2) You have both been there for many a weekend.
>
> 3) They have all been there for many weekends.
> 4) They have all been there for many a weekend.

Ah! That's better.

I think the suggestion is that both or all were there together, but it's
not certain. If they had been there separately, I'd use 'each' instead
of 'both' or 'all'.

You have each been there for many a weekend....

On 2024-03-14 06:06:06 +0000, Hibou said:

> Le 14/03/2024 à 02:52, navi a écrit :
>>
>> 1) You have both been there on many weekends.
>> 2) You have both been there on many a weekend.
>>
>> 3) They have all been there on many weekends.
>> 4) They have all been there on many a weekend.
>>
>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there together?
>>
>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there on the same weekends?
>
> I'm going to translate 'on' to 'for', since 'on * weekend' grates badly
> (makes AmE grate again).

Yes, you took the words out of my mouth.
>
> (<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=go+there+for+the+weekend%2Cgo+there+on+the+weekend&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3>)
>
>
>> 1) You have both been there for many weekends.
>> 2) You have both been there for many a weekend.
>>
>> 3) They have all been there for many weekends.
>> 4) They have all been there for many a weekend.
>
> Ah! That's better.
>
> I think the suggestion is that both or all were there together, but
> it's not certain. If they had been there separately, I'd use 'each'
> instead of 'both' or 'all'.
>
> You have each been there for many a weekend....

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On 14/03/24 17:06, Hibou wrote:
> Le 14/03/2024 à 02:52, navi a écrit :
>>
>> 1) You have both been there on many weekends.
>> 2) You have both been there on many a weekend.
>>
>> 3) They have all been there on many weekends.
>> 4) They have all been there on many a weekend.
>>
>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there together?
>>
>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there on the same
>> weekends?
>
> I'm going to translate 'on' to 'for', since 'on * weekend' grates badly
> (makes AmE grate again).
>
> (<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=go+there+for+the+weekend%2Cgo+there+on+the+weekend&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3>)
>
>
>> 1) You have both been there for many weekends.
>> 2) You have both been there for many a weekend.
>>
>> 3) They have all been there for many weekends.
>> 4) They have all been there for many a weekend.
>
> Ah! That's better.

It's not better for me. In MyE, (2) allows for the weekends to be
scattered over time, although that's not certain. But (1) means that
you've been there for the weekend every week over the period in
question. The "on" version, again in MyE, suggests that it wasn't every
week.

In other words, "on" implies random weekends, but "for" implies a continuum.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

Thursday, Athel Cornish-Bowden murmurred ...
> On 2024-03-14 06:06:06 +0000, Hibou said:
>
>> Le 14/03/2024 à 02:52, navi a écrit :
>>>
>>> 1) You have both been there on many weekends.
>>> 2) You have both been there on many a weekend.
>>>
>>> 3) They have all been there on many weekends.
>>> 4) They have all been there on many a weekend.
>>>
>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there together?
>>>
>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there on the same
>>> weekends?
>>
>> I'm going to translate 'on' to 'for', since 'on * weekend' grates badly
>> (makes AmE grate again).
>
> Yes, you took the words out of my mouth.

Ah, well, grated cheese is often a very nice garnish.

>>
>> (<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=go+there+for+the+weekend%2Cgo+there+on+the+weekend&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3>)
>>
>>
>>> 1) You have both been there for many weekends.
>>> 2) You have both been there for many a weekend.
>>>
>>> 3) They have all been there for many weekends.
>>> 4) They have all been there for many a weekend.
>>
>> Ah! That's better.

They're okay.

>> I think the suggestion is that both or all were there together, but it's
>> not certain. If they had been there separately, I'd use 'each' instead of
>> 'both' or 'all'.
>>
>> You have each been there for many a weekend....

Sounds very old-fashioned, even to someone who appreciates the
old-fashioned.

/dps

--
https://xkcd.com/2704

Le 14/03/2024 à 10:55, Snidely a écrit :
> Thursday, Athel Cornish-Bowden murmurred ...
>> On 2024-03-14 06:06:06 +0000, Hibou said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1) You have both been there for many weekends.
>>>> 2) You have both been there for many a weekend.
>>>>
>>>> 3) They have all been there for many weekends.
>>>> 4) They have all been there for many a weekend.
>>>
>>> Ah! That's better.
>
> They're okay.
>
>>> I think the suggestion is that both or all were there together, but
>>> it's not certain. If they had been there separately, I'd use 'each'
>>> instead of 'both' or 'all'.
>>>
>>>    You have each been there for many a weekend....
>
> Sounds very old-fashioned, even to someone who appreciates the
> old-fashioned.

I'm not sure whether you mean "You have each been" or "many a", but they
both seem to be alive and well:

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=you+have+each+been%3Aeng_us_2019%2Cyou+have+each+been%3Aeng_gb_2019&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=many+a+week%2Cmany+a+man%2Cmany+a+time&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3>

I think 'many a' would count as formal and literary. Perhaps that's the
same as old-fashioned these days.

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 14/03/24 17:06, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 14/03/2024 à 02:52, navi a écrit :
>>>
>>> 1) You have both been there on many weekends.
>>> 2) You have both been there on many a weekend.
>>>
>>> 3) They have all been there on many weekends.
>>> 4) They have all been there on many a weekend.
>>>
>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there together?
>>>
>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there on the same
>>> weekends?
>>
>> I'm going to translate 'on' to 'for', since 'on * weekend' grates badly
>> (makes AmE grate again).
>>
>> (<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=go+there+for+the+weekend%2Cgo+there+on+the+weekend&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3>)
>>
>>
>>> 1) You have both been there for many weekends.
>>> 2) You have both been there for many a weekend.
>>>
>>> 3) They have all been there for many weekends.
>>> 4) They have all been there for many a weekend.
>>
>> Ah! That's better.

> It's not better for me. In MyE, (2) allows for the weekends to be
> scattered over time, although that's not certain. But (1) means that
> you've been there for the weekend every week over the period in
> question. The "on" version, again in MyE, suggests that it wasn't every
> week.

> In other words, "on" implies random weekends, but "for" implies a continuum.

I agree with Peter Moylan here.

However, at

https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/

I find 11 x more examples with "on many weekends" than for "for many weekends," while "on many a weekend" is rare too.

~~~
Source NEWS: USA Today
Date 2004 (20040714)
Publication information LIFE
Title Keeping Kerry company
Author Cesar G. Soriano

The sisters are children of divorce. Alex was 9 and Vanessa 6 when their parents separated in 1982, the year Kerry became lieutenant governor of Massachusetts under Michael Dukakis. # In 1984, Kerry was elected to the U.S. Senate. The girls lived in Boston with their mother, Julia Thorne, but saw their father _on many weekends_. # " Because my parents were separated -- if there is a sunny side to divorce -- my dad works even harder to be there for us, " Alexandra says.

----

Source SPOK: PBS_Newshour
Date 1995 (19950609)
Title New Connections;Gift of Life;Political Wrap

MR-LEHRER: Finally tonight, some Friday politics. The maker of some of it right now is House Speaker Newt Gingrich. He's spending this weekend in New Hampshire, site of the first presidential primary, and thus the place all candidates go _for many weekends_. Does it mean Gingrich may go for the 1996 Republican nomination?

----

Source MAG: Redbook
Date 2005 (Jan 2005)
Publication information Vol. 204, Iss. 1; pg. 72, 3 pgs
Title A YEAR WITH THE IN-LAWS
Author Dan Bovarters

I learned two things that night: My ankle was fine and, given her dad's hypochondria, my wife's fear of failing health could be much, much more extreme. Why she suffers through sports outings-with a smile. _On many a weekend evening_, my father-in-law spirited away Lisa's mom to watch his beloved Holy Cross basketball team get beaten by most of the Eastern seaboard. Now, my mother-in-law enjoys the games, but given her druthers, she probably wouldn't drive three hours to catch one.
----

Best.
--
Marius Hancu

Le 14/03/2024 à 09:52, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> On 14/03/24 17:06, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 14/03/2024 à 02:52, navi a écrit :
>>>
>>> 1) You have both been there on many weekends.
>>> 2) You have both been there on many a weekend.
>>>
>>> 3) They have all been there on many weekends.
>>> 4) They have all been there on many a weekend.
>>>
>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there together?
>>>
>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there on the same
>>> weekends?
>>
>> I'm going to translate 'on' to 'for', since 'on * weekend' grates badly
>> (makes AmE grate again).
>>
>> (<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=go+there+for+the+weekend%2Cgo+there+on+the+weekend&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3>)
>>
>>
>>> 1a) You have both been there for many weekends.
>>> 2a) You have both been there for many a weekend.
>>>
>>> 3a) They have all been there for many weekends.
>>> 4a) They have all been there for many a weekend.
>>
>> Ah! That's better.
>
> It's not better for me. In MyE, (2) allows for the weekends to be
> scattered over time, although that's not certain. But (1) means that
> you've been there for the weekend every week over the period in
> question. The "on" version, again in MyE, suggests that it wasn't every
> week.
>
> In other words, "on" implies random weekends, but "for" implies a
> continuum.

I don't think I see that nuance. For a series, I think I'd say something
like: "You've both been there weekend after weekend."

'Continuum' bothers me, I think, since I feel it implies the whole week:
"You've both been there for many weeks."

In message <usuhd8$1hmjm$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> writes
>On 14/03/24 17:06, Hibou wrote:
>> Le 14/03/2024 à 02:52, navi a écrit :
>>>
>>> 1) You have both been there on many weekends.
>>> 2) You have both been there on many a weekend.
>>>
>>> 3) They have all been there on many weekends.
>>> 4) They have all been there on many a weekend.
>>>
>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there together?
>>>
>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there on the same
>>> weekends?
>>
>> I'm going to translate 'on' to 'for', since 'on * weekend' grates badly
>> (makes AmE grate again).
>>
>>
>>(<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=go+there+for+the+weeken
>>d%2Cgo+there+on+the+weekend&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-
>>2019&smoothing=3>)
>>
>>
>>> 1) You have both been there for many weekends.
>>> 2) You have both been there for many a weekend.
>>>
>>> 3) They have all been there for many weekends.
>>> 4) They have all been there for many a weekend.
>>
>> Ah! That's better.
>
>It's not better for me. In MyE, (2) allows for the weekends to be
>scattered over time, although that's not certain. But (1) means that
>you've been there for the weekend every week over the period in
>question. The "on" version, again in MyE, suggests that it wasn't every
>week.
>
>In other words, "on" implies random weekends, but "for" implies a continuum.
>
In my BrE, 'for' rather implies that it was for the whole of the
weekend, while 'on' suggests that it was not necessarily for the whole
weekend, but at least part of it. For example, if I went somewhere 'for'
the weekend, I would mean for both Saturday and Sunday. I don't think I
would not use 'for' if it was only for one of those days. Instead I
would use 'on' - or maybe 'at'.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

In message <39EwPBIzEi9lFwjQ@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> writes
>In message <usuhd8$1hmjm$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Moylan
><peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> writes
>>On 14/03/24 17:06, Hibou wrote:
>>> Le 14/03/2024 à 02:52, navi a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> 1) You have both been there on many weekends.
>>>> 2) You have both been there on many a weekend.
>>>>
>>>> 3) They have all been there on many weekends.
>>>> 4) They have all been there on many a weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there together?
>>>>
>>>> Do these necessarily imply that you/they have been there on the same
>>>> weekends?
>>>
>>> I'm going to translate 'on' to 'for', since 'on * weekend' grates badly
>>> (makes AmE grate again).
>>>
>>>
>>>(<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=go+there+for+the+weeken
>>>d%2Cgo+there+on+the+weekend&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-
>>>2019&smoothing=3>)
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1) You have both been there for many weekends.
>>>> 2) You have both been there for many a weekend.
>>>>
>>>> 3) They have all been there for many weekends.
>>>> 4) They have all been there for many a weekend.
>>>
>>> Ah! That's better.
>>
>>It's not better for me. In MyE, (2) allows for the weekends to be
>>scattered over time, although that's not certain. But (1) means that
>>you've been there for the weekend every week over the period in
>>question. The "on" version, again in MyE, suggests that it wasn't every
>>week.
>>
>>In other words, "on" implies random weekends, but "for" implies a continuum.
>>
>In my BrE, 'for' rather implies that it was for the whole of the
>weekend, while 'on' suggests that it was not necessarily for the whole
>weekend, but at least part of it. For example, if I went somewhere
>'for' the weekend, I would mean for both Saturday and Sunday. I don't
>think I would not use 'for' if it was only for one of those days.
>Instead I would use 'on' - or maybe 'at'.

Oops! Correction.......
I don't think I would use 'for' if it was only for one of those days.
Instead I would use 'on' - or maybe 'at'.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements