Is "Kain, that doesn't stop you always." grammatically correct?

It has been pointed out to me that the sentence, "Kain, that doesn't stop you always.", meaning "That hasn't stopped you in the past", is gramatically incorrect.

After some analysis I still believe that it is correct. There are many alternatives - for example "Kain, that hasn't stopped you in the past." or "Kain, that never seems to stop you." - but I wonder if the community could confirm if the sencentce in question violate any grammar rules.

The context is that K stated that he hasn't done X becasue of a reason A and my reply was meant to be a humorous way to point out that the reason A wasn't enough to stop K doing X in the past.

Extra clarification:

• Kain: I didn't go a run because it rained.
• Tymek: That doesn't stop you always. It rained all last week and you went for a run twice. I think there is a different reason why you didn't go.

Solution 1:

“Kain that doesn’t stop you always.”

As mentioned in the comments, this sentence is ambiguous and can mean two things:

1. It doesn't always stop him
2. It always doesn’t stop him
   (compare with, It always never rains! and Why do you always never shut up?)

ANSWER:

My analysis will be based on the second. According to CGEL “always” in the OP’s sentence is a speech act evaluative adjunct acting as a supplement to the clause Kain that doesn’t stop you as its anchor. Adjuncts in CGEL can fall under more than one category. In the right context and with an optional comma, “Kain that doesn’t stop you, always” can be understood as “Kain that never stops you”. This is the function of the speech act. Unlike in speech, text does not take into account utterance intonation (pitch levels etc.). Imagine always being said with a rising pitch “Kain that doesn’t stop you, ↑ always”, and it is easier to deduce the second meaning with semantics.

Chapter 8: The Adjuncts

Types of adjunct

xxiv) Fortunately, we got there on time. [evaluation §17]
xxv) Frankly, I’m disappointed [speech act-related: §18]

p. 666

[3] iia. He returned, fortunately. [evaluation]

fortunately in [3 iia] ... is a supplement with the clause, he returned as its ‘anchor’.

p. 667

§17 Evaluative adjuncts

[3]
i) Amazingly he escaped with only a scratch. [evaluative adjunct]

ii) He escaped with only a scratch, which was amazing. [supplementary relative]

In [ii] the adjective is predicative in a supplementary relative clause whose subject has the residue as antecedent. Construction [ii] is much closer in meaning to [i]...
In [ii] the “amazing” feature is backgrounded relative to the residue, as it is in [i], though it still differs by virtue of being expressed predicatively rather than adverbially.

p. 771-772

Speech act adjuncts

ib) Frankly, it was a waste of time

iib) Briefly, your expenditure must not exceed your income.

iiib) Confidentially, Rus is thinking of resigning.

In the [b] examples, by contrast, the adverb describes my speech act: [ib] can be glossed approximately as “I tell you frankly that it was a waste of time”, and analogously for [iib/iiib]. But the adjunct in [b] is not part of the expression of a proposition and hence doesn’t introduce a truth condition: if I’m not in fact speaking frankly, [ib] would be infelicitous, but not actually false.

p. 773