3

Is there a synonym of at a time? For example,

Only four controllers can be connected at a time.

benregn
  • 2,065

4 Answers4

8

Simultaneously and contemporaneously and are both viable options.

  • Yes, but I would have put them the other way around - contemporaneously is very definitely "second choice" for almost all contexts. – FumbleFingers Feb 28 '12 at 19:44
  • @FumbleFingers I wanted to put contemporaneously first because I actually dug that one up. –  Feb 28 '12 at 19:46
  • You must do as you please, but by convention reference sources (and by implication, ELU) normally put the most relevant information first. There are lots of non-native speakers here - they'll naturally assume the first word is first choice, and some of them may thereby "learn" things they really didn't want to know. – FumbleFingers Feb 28 '12 at 19:58
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers That makes sense, I'll edit. –  Feb 28 '12 at 19:59
  • haha - I would upvote you again for that, if the system allowed me! – FumbleFingers Feb 28 '12 at 20:05
  • @FumbleFingers Aw, shucks. –  Feb 28 '12 at 20:05
7

Concurrently would also be acceptable.

jimreed
  • 4,520
3

If you type in "at the same time" at the onelook.com reverse-dictionary, you may find the first seven entries (1. synchronize; 2. synchronous; 3. contemporary; 4. simultaneous; 5. concurrent; 6. contemporaneous; 7. coeval) relevant. Most of the higher-numbered entries that seem relevant are adjectival or adverbial forms redundant with those, except for 17. coincidental and 32. coexistent. Some obscure or less-relevant terms are 47. abreast; 52. monochronic; 94. tautochronous; 108. isochronous; 118. commorient (dying at the same time); 138. coextensive; 144. coetaneous; 150. connascent (born at the same time); 182. synchronoptic (seen at the same time by one person).

James Waldby - jwpat7
  • 66,660
  • +1 Excellent find; perfect reference. Need to post this on meta for the benefit of all those who ask 'What is a general reference question?' – Kris Feb 29 '12 at 06:17
  • 1
    @Kris, I agree that the reverse-dictionary makes the current question practically general reference. By the way, reverse-dictionary only ranks as answer #12 for question 1482 - vote it up :). – James Waldby - jwpat7 Feb 29 '12 at 07:33
  • Thanks, voted up the answer and the great question itself. – Kris Mar 01 '12 at 10:25
1
  • at once
  • together
  • or nothing: "Only four controllers can be connected." It's not World of Warcraft where the port becomes soul-bound (controller-bound) and can never have a different controller connected there ever again.
  • or rephrase: "The device supports four controllers." No further elaboration is needed.
ErikE
  • 4,417
  • The last option is not valid. It does need elaboration or could mean '...but not all at the same time.' – Kris Feb 29 '12 at 06:18
  • First, the OP gave no context to be able to understand the larger meaning. So within the given parameters, I think it's a great suggestion. Second, what in the world are you talking about? Name one example of something that accepts four controllers "but not all at the same time." My examples are: The car can take 4 tires. The toaster can toast 4 pieces of bread. The USB port can accept 4 devices. Looking forward to it. – ErikE Feb 29 '12 at 07:22
  • 1
    My car has 2 electronic keys, it recognized who is driving by the key that is inserted- It accepts 2 keys, but not at the same time. – Jim Feb 29 '12 at 07:40
  • @jim But those are named instances. It's not that it accepts any 2 keys; there ARE only two, and just one keyhole. I am sure "4 controllers" is not definite like keys. The very point I made in my post. Try again? – ErikE Feb 29 '12 at 16:59
  • Actually I tried to make my example one of specific instances and not just any two because if it accepts any controller then you cannot justify specifying a limit of 4. Consider the copy machine we had at my first job- The copy machine required a counter module to be inserted before it could be used. Each department had its own. Only modules with the correct encoding would work- i.e., you couldn't bring in a counterfeit module and make copies. Given that we had 4 depts, it could be said there were only 4 modules the machine would accept and they could only be used one at a time. – Jim Feb 29 '12 at 17:41
  • @jim But there is no need to say a copier only accepts one at a time, because it only has one port! And everyone knows that. Again, you've listed 4 specific keys that work. The OP had no such restriction. The point is that knowing the number of ports, keyholes, USB connectors, and so on is sufficient to know how many can be attached at once. There is no need to enumerate the exact set eligible for connection when no such definite list exists. You CAN use such language as you suggest (it is not wrong) but it also is not needed. – ErikE Feb 29 '12 at 18:07
  • After telling someone there are only 4 copier keys that can be used, would anyone ever be confused about how many at a time can be connected? Look, if the OP gives more context perhaps we can settle the particulars of the question. In the meantime, my offered answers are perfectly acceptable English language for some situations. Usually, having fewer words is best. – ErikE Feb 29 '12 at 18:11
  • Essentially we are discussing the language aspect and not the technical implications here. It is obvious from Jim's examples also that the fourth option is ambiguous and from the language point of view can mean '...but not all at the same time', irrespective of whether that is plausible/practicable or not. – Kris Mar 01 '12 at 10:32
  • @Kris This is pure logic, not technical. If "supports 4 controllers" does mean "but not all at the same time" then the only meaning "4" can have is to enumerate the allowed instances. There are only 2 options: either 4 can be attached at a time from some large unbounded set, or there are 4 specific items that can be attached in a restricted configuration (like one at a time). Any other meaning would require TWO numbers e.g. "The device supports 20 controllers, 4 at a time." In either case no further elaboration is needed as the context will determine which meaning is intended. – ErikE Mar 01 '12 at 18:00
  • Ha! You got the point there: If the statement 'The device supports 20 controllers' can take another clause '4 at a time', it implies the statement is open-ended (by simple logic). So you have agreed it is ambiguous. :) – Kris Mar 02 '12 at 03:50
  • @Kris You're confusing possibility with necessity. I already told you that when a single number is given, the context indicates whether it is the first number (a discrete set of items, the "plug") or the second number (how many at a time from an unbounded set, the "receptacle"). It's absurd to say that since you can say plugs and receptacles together, you always must. When you tell people that your car has two keys, do they suddenly start wondering how many ignition keyholes you have? You don't always specify you only have one keyhole? Nope. Your logic fails. – ErikE Mar 02 '12 at 07:35