obsolete = not trendy?

Kacy.H

Senior Member
Chinese
Hi people, I want to say these garments are not trendy fast. Does "obsolete" work? Are there any other adjectives I can use? Many thanks.

These low-quality garments wear out fast and become obsolete fast.
I wrote it.
 
Last edited:
  • Kacy.H

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    These low-quality garments wear out fast and become outdated quickly.
    Thanks to both of you very much. I thought I created a rhythm by repeating "fast". So no rhythm was created? I only created repetition by using "fast" twice?

    These low-quality garments wear out fast and become outdated fast.
     

    pops91710

    Senior Member
    English, AE/Spanish-Mexico
    Thanks to both of you very much. I thought I created a rhythm by repeating "fast". So no rhythm was created? I only created repetition by using "fast" twice?

    These low-quality garments wear out fast and become outdated fast.
    Google fast vs quickly. Fast is an adjective and quickly is an adverb. Technically speaking fast is not correct, but don't let that stop you because we do it all the time albeit wrongly. I'm just against repeating certain words so closely. Somewhere in my past a teacher whacked me for doing it.
     

    Delvo

    Senior Member
    American English
    The sentence you wrote when you wanted "rhythm" can be said with rhythm or without it. Your word choice didn't force it. When I first read it, the idea of doing it that way didn't occur to me. But I can picture someone saying it that way in real life. A couple of more common examples of the same kind of saying are "We work hard; we party/play hard" and "Live by the sword; die by the sword".

    In both of those cases and the way I hear your example in my mind, the verbs are emphasized because they're meant to be perceived as having a connection, belonging together as a pair. There are three ways a speaker would do that. One is by saying the verbs a tiny bit louder than the other words. Another is by using a rising tone on the first verb and a falling tone on the second, like a metaphor for a single thing going up and coming back down. And the third is the one you appear to be asking about: treating both verbs the same by giving them the same adverb. In your example, they get connected because they're both things that happen "fast". In mine, they're connected because they're things somebody does "hard" or "by the sword". You can make up any new example you want, say it this way, and have your English-speaking listeners immediately understand that you're putting the verbs together like that because you think of them together.

    But the way it works is based on how the speaker uses his/her voice while saying it. So if it's written, it won't work unless the reader knows to imagine it being said that way. If you write a common enough saying of this type, like my "by the sword" and "hard" examples, most readers will recognize it and mentally "hear" it the intended way. But the example you're using here is not a commonly used saying, so your readers are less likely to recognize it and read it that way. We don't know you're adding the second "fast" until we've already read the first one without imagining that vocal emphasis & tonality. Putting the verbs in italics might help but it's still no guarantee. I just did it in the last sentence of the paragraph before this one, and I'm sure I got mixed results with different readers. This just isn't something you can count on being able to convey in writing.
     
    Top