"not considered to be keeping up" would be okay if there's an excluded middle in the context it appears, I think. Though I'd be tempted to say somehting like "considered to be fallnig behind", :).
I think both of your phrases make sense, though they both sound awkward to me. But in the right context, I think they could both work so.
The second, I think implies a state/category "not keeping up".
There is a simple division between those who are keeping up, and those who are not keeping up. You are considered to be not keeping up.
Whereas the first it's more of a definite absence of a particular positive state.
There is a requirement that you keep up, that you maintain vigilence, and that you are trustworthy. Whilst you are considered to be vigilent, and you are considered to be trustworthy; you are considered not to be keeping up.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 03:55 pm (UTC)Though I'd be tempted to say somehting like "considered to be fallnig behind", :).
I think both of your phrases make sense, though they both sound awkward to me. But in the right context, I think they could both work so.
The second, I think implies a state/category "not keeping up".
There is a simple division between those who are keeping up, and those who are not keeping up. You are considered to be not keeping up.
Whereas the first it's more of a definite absence of a particular positive state.
There is a requirement that you keep up, that you maintain vigilence, and that you are trustworthy. Whilst you are considered to be vigilent, and you are considered to be trustworthy; you are considered not to be keeping up.
I'd still not start from here, though, :).
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 05:48 pm (UTC)*laughs* I'd forgotten that phrase :)
And yes, you could be right...