Basically I want to say:

Sheep grazing is one of the possible ways to restore the biodiversity of alpine meadows that have been uncultivated for a long time.

But I would like to form much nicer and simpler sentence. I would imagine something like this:

Sheep grazing is one of the possible ways to restore the biodiversity of [THAT WORD] uncultivated alpine meadows.

So I am looking for a single word that would beam "for a long time" which could be placed there to make the sentence more fluent :-)

The only thing I can think of is "longly" but this sounds suspicious to me :-)

  • "Fallow" would have been a good choice. It conveys both a sense of time and "previously-but-no-longer-cultivated". Although I'd still use "long" as in "the biodiversity of the long-fallow alpine meadows". It also can insinuate that cultivation will resume later. – VampDuc Apr 21 '15 at 17:00

long itself works perfectly fine as an adverb

For a long time:

his long-awaited Grand Prix debut

long-uncultivated alpine meadows, though it sounds a bit unusual, should do it.

  • 1
    Or better still, "that have long been uncultivated" ? – Kris Apr 21 '15 at 14:18
  • Because long uncultivated sound awkward, that adjective form generally goes with positives, not negatives. Long neglected works, long uncared doesn't I think. – Kris Apr 21 '15 at 14:20

How about "... that have long been uncultivated"? No-one will think you're referring to a distance so there's no room for confusion.

  • not so elegant.. I'd like to get rid of "... that have ..." subsentence... – Tomas Apr 21 '15 at 12:06

Sheep grazing is one of the possible ways to restore the biodiversity of long-term uncultivated alpine meadows.

  • really? Can the word "long-term" actually serve as an adjective in this context? This is new to me. – Tomas Apr 21 '15 at 10:07
  • Yes, I think you could use long-term in this way. – dave Apr 21 '15 at 10:24
  • 1
    "Long-term uncultivated" can be understood as short for "uncultivated in the long term". Technically, long-term is ambiguous about referring to the past, the future, or both. But the given context resolves this ambiguity sufficiently. – user86291 Apr 21 '15 at 10:43
  • What about this? Sheep grazing is one possible way to restore the biodiversity of alpine meadows long out of cultivation. – user227547 Apr 13 '17 at 3:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.